Legal Research
Cases
Re Richards

Re Richards

Case [2022] WADC 100 23 November 2022

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RE RICHARDS [2022] WADC 100
CORAM:   GETHING DCJ
HEARD:   18 JULY, 9 AUGUST 2022
DELIVERED          :   23 NOVEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   APP 78 of 2021
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: PETER RICHARDS
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number            :   CIC 2175/2021

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Adequacy of award - Whether amounts received by the appellant from RiskCover must be deducted from the award - Whether amounts received by the appellant from the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) must be deducted from the award

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA), s 42

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms E Tapsell on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

Cases referred to in decision:

AA v ARW [2020] WADC 131
Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
B v B [2004] WASC 6
B v W (1989) 6 SR (WA) 79
Baker v His Honour Judge Stone of the District Court of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 56
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 27; (1992) 176 CLR 408
Blackwell v Warren [2018] WADC 127
Bothma v Hildebrand [2019] WADC 92
Cahill v Smith [2015] WADC 148
CME [2018] WADC 69
Cooper v Smith [2017] WADC 82
East Metropolitan Health Service v Ellis [2020] WASCA 147
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666, 673
Fitzgerald v Penn (1954) 91 CLR 268
G & N v R [2006] WADC 208; (2006) 48 SR (WA) 301
Garton v McCormack (2002) 30 SR (WA) 307
Goodwin v Baker [2020] WADC 43
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported, WASC, Library No 4012, 15 December 1980) 5
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Houlahan v Pitchen [2009] WASCA 104
Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 10; (2013) 247 CLR 613
M R & R C Smith Pty Ltd t/as Ultratune (Osborne Park) v Wyatt [No 2] [2012] WASCA 110
M v J and J v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992
Milburn-Thomas v Palmer [2020] WADC 158
Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544
Nagel v Tahere [2020] WADC 110
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118
Re Jackamarra [2014] WADC 9
Re Karra (1984) 2 SR (WA) 97
Re Matthews [2017] WADC 126
Re McHenry [2014] WADC 92
Re Wakelin [2018] WADC 165
Re Warrek [2019] WADC 50
RJE v Bandy (Unreported, WASC, Library No 1365, 31 May 1974)
Robinson [2017]…

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 Richards

Details

AGLC: Re Richards [2022] WADC 100
Case: [2022] WADC 100
Decision Date: 23 NOVEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in the matter of Re Richards involved the appellant, who had sought criminal injuries compensation. The central issue was the adequacy of the compensation award and whether certain payments received by the appellant from RiskCover and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) should be deducted from the award. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the amounts received by the appellant from RiskCover and the NDIS should be taken into account when determining the adequacy of the compensation award. The court needed to assess whether these payments should be deducted from the compensation award to avoid double compensation for the same injury.

The court held that the amounts received from RiskCover and the NDIS should not be deducted from the compensation award. The court found that these payments were not intended to compensate for the injury caused by the crime but rather to provide support for the appellant's disability and ongoing care. Therefore, these payments should not be considered when assessing the adequacy of the compensation award. The court further concluded that the award, as it stood, was inadequate and ordered a higher compensation amount to be paid to the appellant.

Orders