Shoebridge v Pasta Master Pty Ltd - [2000] VSC 14

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CAUSES JURISDICTION Do not Send for Reporting

Not Restricted

No. 6139 of 1999

LIONEL SHOEBRIDGE and HEATHER SHOEBRIDGE	Appellants
v
THE PASTA MASTER PTY LTD	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	Warren J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 December 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 February 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Shoebridge & Anor v The Pasta Master Pty Ltd & Anor
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 14	First revision 14/2/2000

---

Appeal - Magistrates' Court – Sentencing Act 1991, s.86 – Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, s.74 – Compensation for pain and suffering arising from an offence – Retrospective and prospective application of amending legislation

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr M.A. Dreyfus QC with Mr R. Heath	Slater & Gordon
For the Respondent	Mr A. Lindeman	Phillips Fox
For the Attorney-General of the State of Victoria	Mr M. Robins	Victorian Government Solicitor

HER HONOUR:

The appellants bring the proceeding by way of appeal under the Magistrates' Court Act 1989.

Leon Shoebridge, the son of the appellants, died in an accident at his workplace on 17 March 1997. As a result of the death the employer of the deceased was charged under s.21(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 with failing to provide a plant and system of work that was safe. The relevant parts of s.21 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act under which the respondent was charged provides:

"21. Duties of employers

(1) An employer shall provide and maintain so far as is practicable for employees a working environment that is safe and without risks to health.

(2) Without in any way limiting the generality of sub‑section (1), an employer contravenes that sub-section if the employer fails‑

(a)to provide and maintain plant and systems of work that are so far as is practicable safe and without risks to health;"

The employer, who is the respondent in this proceeding, pleaded guilty to the charge before the Magistrates' Court sitting at Bendigo and on 1 July 1999 was convicted and fined $30,000. Immediately after the conviction and sentence of the employer the magistrate heard an application by the appellants in this proceeding that the employer pay compensation to them for the pain and suffering suffered as a result of the death of their son. The application was brought pursuant to s.86 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (as amended by the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996). Section 86 of the Sentencing Act in its present form came into operation on 1 July 1997. The section was amended by s.74(1) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996. Prior to the amendment, the Sentencing Act limited the right of application for compensation to loss or destruction of or damage to property. There was no entitlement to compensation for pain and suffering as a result of a relevant offence.

The application for compensation was resisted in the Magistrates' Court below by the employer. The employer argued that the provisions of s.86(1)…

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 Shoebridge v Pasta Master Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Shoebridge v Pasta Master Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 14
Case: [2000] VSC 14
Decision Date: 7 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal, heard by the Magistrates' Court, involved Shoebridge as the appellant against Pasta Master Pty Ltd, the respondent. Shoebridge had initially been convicted of a crime that resulted in injuries, and he was seeking compensation for the pain and suffering that arose from the offence. The crux of the dispute was the applicability of certain statutory provisions concerning compensation and sentencing, specifically the Sentencing Act 1991 and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, and their retrospective and prospective applications.

The court was tasked with determining the extent to which amending legislation could be applied retroactively to affect the compensation Shoebridge was entitled to receive. The key issue was whether the amendments to the Sentencing Act 1991 and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 could be applied to the present case, which predated the legislative changes, or if they should only apply to future cases. The court needed to balance the legal principle of retrospective legislation with the rights of victims to receive compensation for injuries sustained from criminal acts.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the language of the amending legislation and considered the principles of statutory interpretation. It was held that the amendments to the acts in question were not intended to have retrospective effect and thus did not apply to Shoebridge's case. The court found that the compensation Shoebridge was entitled to be assessed under the law as it stood at the time of the offence. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that, unless expressly stated, statutes are presumed not to operate retrospectively. This interpretation protected the rights of victims under the law as it existed at the time of the offence, and ensured that legislative changes did not unfairly disadvantage those who were injured prior to the amendments.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and Shoebridge's entitlement to compensation was to be determined under the original provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996. The court's decision upheld the principle of non-retrospectivity in statutory interpretation and affirmed the importance of protecting victims' rights under the law in effect at the time of the offence.

Orders