Scott v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation - [2000] NSWSC 1148

Reported Decision: (2000) 120 A Crim R 150

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Scott v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [2000] NSWSC 1148

FILE NUMBER(S): SC NR600011/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 28/11/00;29/11/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 December 2000

PARTIES :

Bradley Ian Scott v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Victims Compensation Tribunal

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 95/24/18A1

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : C Braehe

COUNSEL : Mr D Galpin - for plaintiff
Ms N Abadee - for defendant

SOLICITORS:
For plaintiff
Northern Rivers Community Legal Centre
Lismore
For Defendant
I V Knight
Crown Solicitor
Sydney

CATCHWORDS: Victims Compensation - Appeal from determination - Appeal limited to error of law - Restitution Order - Quantification - Criteria to be applied - Failure to have regard to relevant factor - Manifestly unreasonable - Re-determination by Supreme Court

LEGISLATION CITED: Victims Compensation Act, 1987 Part 5 ss 43, 44, 45, 47, 49
Victims Compensation Act, 1996
Justices Act, 1902 ss 102(3), 104, 106
Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act, 1970 s 69

CASES CITED: Pace v Read [2000] NSWSC 823, unreported 18 August 2000
Carr v Nevill [1999] NSWSC 1263, unreported 17 December, 1999
DPP (NSW) v Sinton [2000] NSWSC 473, unreported 31 May 2000
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1
Marbury v Madison (1803) 1 Cranch 137
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v peko Wallsend Limited (1986) 162 CLR 24
Abebe v The Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Woo Shan Liang (1986) 185 CLR 259
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 380
Sean Investments Pty Limited v MacKellar (1981) 38 ALR 363
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223
Re W (an infant) (1971) AC 682
Parramatta City Council v Pestell (1972) 128 CLR 305
Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Coal & Allied Operations Pty Limited v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; [2000] 74 ALJR 1348

DECISION: Decision of Victims Compensation Tribunal quashed; Amount of restitution to be paid determined as nil; Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
O’KEEFE J
DATE: 1 December 2000
No: NR 600011 of 2000 - BRADLEY IAN SCOTT v VICTIMS COMPENSATION FUND CORPORATION

JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR:
INTRODUCTION
1 This is an appeal by Bradley Ian Scott (the plaintiff) from a decision of the Victims Compensation Tribunal (the Tribunal) given on 7 April 2000 in which a restitution order for $12,555 payable by monthly instalments of $30 was made against him.
2 The appeal is brought pursuant to a right conferred by s.49(1) of the Victims Compensation Act, 1987. It provides:

“A determination for restitution may be appealed against in the same way as a judgment of a Local Court exercising civil jurisdiction may be appealed against.”

3 As a consequence of s.49(1) of the Victims Compensation Act, 1987 the appeal is governed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Scott v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWSC 1148
Decision Date: 1 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Scott v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation, the dispute arose from an application for compensation by the applicant, Scott, to the Victims Compensation Fund Corporation, a statutory body established to provide compensation to victims of crime. The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the fund corporation had erred in law when it determined the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant. The secondary issue was whether the Supreme Court should re-determine the compensation amount due to the fund corporation's failure to consider a relevant factor, leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was limited to identifying any errors of law in the original decision. The applicant argued that the fund corporation had failed to consider a relevant factor when determining the amount of compensation, which led to a manifestly unreasonable outcome. The Court of Appeal agreed with the applicant's submission that the fund corporation had indeed erred in law by not considering the relevant factor, which led to a manifestly unreasonable outcome. The court held that the Supreme Court should re-determine the compensation amount, as the fund corporation's decision was manifestly unreasonable due to the failure to consider the relevant factor.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the compensation amount be re-determined by the Supreme Court, considering the relevant factor that the fund corporation had failed to take into account. The Court of Appeal emphasised that the Supreme Court should ensure that the compensation amount awarded was not manifestly unreasonable and that all relevant factors had been properly considered. The Court of Appeal did not interfere with the fund corporation's discretion to determine the compensation amount, but rather required the Supreme Court to re-determine the compensation amount in accordance with the correct legal principles.

Orders