DUNNE [2014] WADC 131
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WADC 131 | |
| Case No: | APP:68/2013 | 15 SEPTEMBER 2014 | |
| Coram: | DAVIS DCJ | 26/09/14 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 18 | Judgment 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
- 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.
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.