Re RJA

Case [2022] WADC 106 30 November 2022

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RE RJA [2022] WADC 106
CORAM:   COMMISSIONER COLLINS
HEARD:   29 JUNE 2022 AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED 13, 19 & 23 MAY & 13 JULY 2022
DELIVERED          :   30 NOVEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   APP 41 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: RJA
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number            :   CIC 1823 of 2020

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Proved offence - Mental and nervous shock - Admission of additional evidence - Assessment of compensation - Loss of earning capacity - Mitigation - Contribution to injuries - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA), s 301
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA), s 3, s 6, s 12, s 35, s 41, s 45, s 48, s 55, s 56

Result:

Appeal allowed
Compensation award varied

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr C S Cooper
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms K A Miller on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Bradford Legal
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor's Office for Western Australia

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

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
ATB v LA [2021] WADC 64
ATS v Williss [2021] WADC 58
Blackwell v Warren [2018] WADC 127
Cullen v Trappell [1980] HCA 10; (1980) 146 CLR 18
De Florenca v Hayden [2007] WADC 54
Dimitrovska v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 162
Dunne [2014] WADC 131
E M v C L [2021] WADC 127
EB v Ramljak [2021] WADC 134
Edmonds v Juniper [2016] WADC 7
ELK v CFB [2009] WADC 90
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal (1982) 150 CLR 666
Fairhead v Quartermaine [2010] WADC 1; (2010) 69 SR (WA) 73
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
GW v JW [2019] WADC 15
Harris v Sycamore [2022] WADC 4
Hayward v Hart [2012] WADC 151
Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78
Husher v Husher [1999] HCA 47; (1999) 197 CLR 138
JDQ [2010] WADC 93
JLW v DRH (2004) 36 SR (WA) 301
JY [2013] WADC 187
KMA v DFS [2010] WADC 6
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1
Montemaggiori v Wilson [2011] WASCA 177
Montgomerie v Scott [2011] NSWDC 154
Perris v Riley [2009] WADC 39
Re Anderson [2022] WADC 97
Re ATS [2017] WADC 92
Re Butler [2020] WADC 22
Re Farmer [2015] WADC 91
Re Richardson [2009] WADC 93
Re Tilbury [2010] WADC 46
Savic v Duric [2021] WADC 53
SH v BS [2001] WADC 291
Sweetman v Lilley [2021] WADC 74
Swinford [2021] WADC 82
Syme v Roos [2016] WADC 164
TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
WHW…

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 RJA

Details

AGLC: Re RJA [2022] WADC 106
Case: [2022] WADC 106
Decision Date: 30 NOVEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re RJA, the applicant sought compensation for criminal injuries sustained during a violent attack. The applicant was attacked and robbed by an assailant, resulting in physical and psychological harm. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the applicant appealed a decision by the State Administrative Tribunal that had rejected their claim for compensation. The applicant argued that the Tribunal's assessment of their loss of earning capacity and the impact of their injuries on their mental and nervous condition was incorrect.

The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's loss of earning capacity was correct, and whether the Tribunal had appropriately considered the impact of the applicant's injuries on their mental and nervous condition. The court also had to decide whether the Tribunal's consideration of the applicant's contribution to their injuries and the mitigation of those injuries was appropriate. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to properly consider the totality of their injuries and the impact they had on their ability to work.

The court found that the Tribunal had not properly considered the totality of the applicant's injuries and the impact they had on their ability to work. The court noted that the applicant's injuries had resulted in a loss of earning capacity, and that the Tribunal had not properly assessed the extent of that loss. The court also found that the Tribunal had not properly considered the impact of the applicant's injuries on their mental and nervous condition. The court held that the Tribunal's failure to properly consider these factors meant that its assessment of the applicant's compensation was incorrect. The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for re-hearing, with directions to properly consider the totality of the applicant's injuries and their impact on their ability to work and their mental and nervous condition.

Orders