Re Dunne

Case [2014] WADC 131


DUNNE [2014] WADC 131



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2014] WADC 131
Case No:APP:68/201315 SEPTEMBER 2014
Coram:DAVIS DCJ26/09/14
PERTH
18Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed
Compensation award increased
PDF Version
Parties:GERARD DUNNE

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation
Appeal from award on ground of inadequacy
Extension of time to appeal
Further evidence admitted
Nervous shock psychological symptoms
Causation issues
Future treatment
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
District Court Rules 2005

Case References:

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
B v W (1989) 6 SR (WA) 79
Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General v A (2006) 45 SR (WA) 135
Crumby v Kuru (1995) 13 SR (WA) 331
DNA v Britten (1995) 14 SR (WA) 325
Dos Santos v Dos Santos [2000] WADC 256
Du Boulay v Worrell [2009] QCA 63
Dunne [2013] WACIC 21
ELK v CFB [2009] WADC 90
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal (1982) 150 CLR 666
Gallo v Dawson (1992) 66 ALJR 859
Garton v McCormack [2002] WADC 111; (2002) 30 SR (WA) 307
Gleeson v Lee (1996) 18 SR (WA) 353
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported, WASC, Library No 4012, 15 December 1980)
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
JLW v DRH [2004] WADC 214; (2004) 36 SR (WA) 301
M v J; J v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
McDavitt v McDavitt [No 2] [2013] WADC 198
MJN v MAJS (2003) 35 SR (WA) 219
Re Tilbury [2010] WADC 46
RJE v Bandy (Unreported, WASC, Library No 5489, 31 May 1974)
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288


JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : DUNNE [2014] WADC 131 CORAM : DAVIS DCJ HEARD : 15 SEPTEMBER 2014 DELIVERED : 26 SEPTEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : APP 68 of 2013 MATTER : IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 BETWEEN : GERARD DUNNE
    Appellant


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : H L PORTER

File No : CI 000080 of 2013


Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal from award on ground of inadequacy - Extension of time to appeal - Further evidence admitted - Nervous shock psychological symptoms - Causation issues - Future treatment - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003


District Court Rules 2005

Result:

Appeal allowed


Compensation award increased

Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr R D McCabe

    Amicus Curiae : Mr L D Villiers appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

    Appellant : Slater & Gordon

    Amicus Curiae : State Solicitor for Western Australia


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

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
B v W (1989) 6 SR (WA) 79
Chief Executive Officer of the Department of…

Continue reading Re Dunne

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Dunne [2014] WADC 131
Case
[2014] WADC 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Dunne involved an appeal by the respondent against an award of compensation for criminal injuries. The primary issue was the adequacy of the compensation awarded, with the respondent contending that the amount was insufficient. The appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether the appeal was filed within the appropriate timeframe and whether the respondent's claims of inadequate compensation were valid. Additionally, the court had to consider whether new evidence, presented by the respondent, could be admitted and whether it justified an increase in the compensation award. The causation of psychological symptoms, including claims of nervous shock, and the necessity of future treatment were also pivotal issues in the appeal.

The court meticulously examined the arguments presented regarding the inadequacy of the initial compensation award. It considered the principles governing criminal injuries compensation, focusing on the balance between the severity of the injuries and the compensation provided. The court assessed the respondent's claims of inadequate compensation by weighing the evidence of psychological symptoms and the necessity for future treatment. Furthermore, the court deliberated on the procedural aspect of admitting new evidence and its impact on the appeal's merits. It concluded that the new evidence was relevant and could be considered, as it provided further insight into the respondent's condition and needs.

After thorough deliberation, the court found that the appeal was within the allowable timeframe and that the new evidence was admissible. The court determined that the initial compensation award was indeed inadequate, considering the severity of the psychological symptoms and the necessity for ongoing treatment. The court recognised that the respondent's claims of nervous shock and the impact of the criminal injuries warranted a higher compensation award. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the compensation award was increased to better reflect the respondent's needs and the extent of the injuries sustained.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Compensation award increased

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.