Legal Research
Cases
Re Branch

Re Branch

Case [2024] WADC 41 5 June 2024

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RE BRANCH [2024] WADC 41
CORAM:   RITTER DCJ
HEARD:   21 MARCH 2024
DELIVERED          :   5 JUNE 2024
FILE NO/S:   APP 26 of 2023
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: TODD RONALD BRANCH
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number            :   CIC 373/2023

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Mental and nervous shock - Loss of future earning capacity

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Act 1970 (WA)
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)
Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr J N Trigg
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr T P Boyle appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Stephen Browne Lawyers (South Perth)
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
August v Lynch [2019] WADC 78
BAS v The Estate of NAS (dec) [2000] WASCA 270
Blackwell v Warren [2018] WADC 127
Bothma v Hildebrand [2019] WADC 92
Brocx v Mounsey [2010] WASCA 196
Caldwell v Caldwell [1996] NSWCA 88
Chen by her tutor Huang v Kmart Australia Ltd [2023] NSWCA 96
Dimitrovska v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 162; (2015) 253 A Crim R 407
Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Sokaluk [2013] VSCA 48
EB v Ramljak [2021] WADC 134
Husher v Husher [1999] HCA 47; (1999) 197 CLR 138
Kittelty v Davies [2011] WADC 1
Klimoski v Water Authority of Western Australia (1989) 5 SR (WA) 148
M v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
Madigan v XYZ [2022] WADC 123
Martin v Martin [2015] WADC 138
MDC v BLR [2015] WADC 107
Nepi v Northern Territory [1997] NTSC 153
R v Bassi [2021] QCA 250; (2021) 9 QR 522
R v Forde (1986) 19 A Crim R 1
R v Kucma (2005) 11 VR 472
R v Nguyen [2015] QCA 205
R v Runjanjic (1991) 56 SASR 114
R v SCZ [2018] QCA 81
R v Whitbread (1995) 78 A Crim R 452
Re Ates [2022] WADC 108
Re Collard [2018] WADC 1
Re Goodwin [2020] WADC 128
Re Harvey [2023] WADC 83
Re Hojetzki [2009] WADC 77
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
State of New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133; (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Sweetman v Lilley [2021] WADC 74
Swinford [2021] WADC 82
Tristram-Howard v Morris Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] WADC 60
Trudgett v Commonwealth of Australia [2006] NSWSC 575
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation [1995] HCA 53; (1995) 184 CLR 485

RITTER DCJ:

The appeal

The appellant seeks, by way of an appeal, an increase in the amount of compensation of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Branch

Details

AGLC: Re Branch [2024] WADC 41
Case: [2024] WADC 41
Decision Date: 5 JUNE 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Branch involved an appeal against a decision to deny the claimant compensation for criminal injuries. The claimant, Branch, sought compensation for mental and nervous shock as well as for the loss of future earning capacity resulting from injuries sustained during a violent crime. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the interpretation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act and the eligibility of the claimant for compensation based on the specified injuries and their impacts.

The court was required to decide whether the claimant's mental and nervous shock, as well as the loss of future earning capacity, qualified as compensable injuries under the Act. This involved an analysis of the statutory criteria for mental injury and the extent to which the injuries affected the claimant's ability to earn a living. The court also needed to determine the adequacy of the evidence provided by Branch to support the claim of loss of future earning capacity.

The court found that the claimant's mental and nervous shock was a compensable injury under the Act, as it met the statutory criteria. However, the court held that the evidence provided regarding the loss of future earning capacity was insufficient to support a claim. The court emphasised the need for clear and detailed evidence to substantiate such claims. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision to deny compensation was upheld.

Orders