MARTINO DCJ: The appellant, Mr Tilbury, appeals against an award of compensation made on 14 May 2009 in respect of injuries that he suffered as a result of an assault on him on 10 August 2007. The assault was reported to police but no person was charged in respect of it. The compensation awarded to Mr Tilbury was, in total, $43,628.20. The learned Assessor was not requested to provide reasons for making the award and she did not do so. The Office of Criminal Injuries Compensation sent a copy of the award to Mr Tilbury's solicitors by a letter dated 14 May 2009. In that letter the Office of Criminal Injuries Compensation informed Mr Tilbury's solicitors that the award was made up as follows:
Injuries$27,000.00
Medical report fees $ 1,045.00
Past (4 months) loss of earnings (net) $14,667.00
Travel expenses $ 142.00
Medical expenses $ 774.20
TOTAL$43,628.20
In his notice of appeal Mr Tilbury expresses the reason for the appeal:
"The Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Chief Assessor because:
1.the Award made by the Chief Assessor only included 4 months loss of earnings (net); and
2.medical documentation recently obtained provides that the Appellant was unfit to work for 10 months after the alleged offence, accordingly the Appellant believes he should be awarded compensation for 10 months loss of earnings."
The nature of the appeal and the admission of further evidence
The appeal is a fresh hearing of Mr Tilbury's claim for compensation and I am to determine it without being fettered by the Assessor's decision. I can determine the claim solely on the evidence and information that was in the possession of the Assessor or I may receive further evidence and information: s 56(1) Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003. The Act does not expressly state the basis upon which the discretion to receive further evidence and information is to be exercised. However the general rule is that when an appeal is…
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 Tilbury
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Tilbury [2010] WADC 46
Case
[2010] WADC 46
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Re Tilbury involved a claimant seeking compensation for criminal injuries under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1981 (Cth). The dispute centred around the assessment of compensation, particularly regarding the claimant's unfitness for work and the admissibility of additional evidence provided by the claimant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the claimant's unfitness for work warranted an increased level of compensation and whether the late submission of additional evidence should be accepted. The court needed to balance the statutory requirements for compensation with the principles of procedural fairness and the claimant's right to present their case fully.
The Supreme Court held that the claimant's unfitness for work was a significant factor that warranted a higher compensation amount. The court acknowledged the statutory presumption that a claimant who is unfit for work is entitled to compensation that reflects their total incapacity. However, the court also noted the importance of procedural fairness and the need to ensure that the process was not abused. The court accepted the late submission of additional evidence, finding that it was relevant and necessary to properly assess the claimant's condition and the impact of the injuries. Ultimately, the court increased the compensation amount to reflect the claimant's unfitness for work.
The court ordered that the claimant be awarded additional compensation to reflect their total incapacity and the impact of the criminal injuries sustained. The court emphasised the importance of a thorough and fair assessment of claims under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1981 (Cth).