Sutton v Victims Compensation Tribunal - [2013] NSWSC 52

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sutton v Victims Compensation Tribunal [2013] NSWSC 52
Hearing dates: 31/1/2013
Decision date: 07 February 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Administrative Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal is refused.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.
(3) The decision of his Honour Magistrate Lulham dated 28 May 2012 is affirmed.
(4) The amended summons filed 31 July 2012 is dismissed.
(5) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 55 Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act - whether tribunal erred at law - whether unreasonable on the facts to make order of restitution against plaintiff
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Local Courts Act 2007
Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996
Cases Cited: Nguyen v Victims Compensation Fund [2001] NSWCA 264
Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 282
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: William Lewis Sutton (Plaintiff)
Victims Compensation Tribunal (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:

File Number(s): 2012/191863
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2012-05-28 00:00:00

Before:

Lulham LCM

File Number(s):

RT135521

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is an appeal pursuant to s 55 of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996. The appeal is against a decision of Victims Compensation Tribunal Chairperson his Honour Lulham LCM made on 28 May 2012.

By amended summons filed 31 July 2012, the plaintiff seeks firstly, an order setting aside the order of Local Court Magistrate Lulham of 28 May 2012, that the plaintiff pay the defendant $8000, in proceedings for debtor D072236, in which an order for restitution was made; and secondly, that the matter be sent back to the Victims Compensation Tribunal to be dealt with according to law.

The plaintiff is William Lewis Sutton. The defendant is the Victims Compensation Tribunal (the Tribunal). The plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Joe Weller dated 29 January 2013. The defendant relied on the affidavit of Matthew Ting affirmed 24 October 2012 and the affidavit of Parama Srikanth affirmed 24 October 2012.

The appeal to this Court

The appeal mechanism provided for by the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act is outlined in s 55. Sections 39 and 40 of the Local Court Act 2007 also apply.

If an order for restitution is confirmed after a hearing before the Tribunal it may be appealed against in the same way as a judgment of the Local Court exercising civil jurisdiction - see s 55 of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act.

Section 39 of the Local Court Act provides that a party who is dissatisfied with a judgment or order of the Local Court may appeal to the Supreme Court, but only on a question of law; and s 40(1) of the Local Court Act provides that a party who is dissatisfied with a judgment or order of the Local Court may appeal to the Supreme Court on a ground that involves a question of mixed law and fact, but only…

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 Sutton v Victims Compensation Tribunal 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: [2013] NSWSC 52
Decision Date: 07 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sutton v Victims Compensation Tribunal involved the plaintiff seeking to challenge a decision made by the Victims Compensation Tribunal in Queensland. The plaintiff was awarded compensation for a previous incident, but later, the tribunal ordered that this compensation be repaid due to a change in circumstances. The plaintiff sought to appeal this decision on the grounds that the tribunal had erred in law and that its decision was unreasonable given the facts.

The legal issues before the court were whether the tribunal had made an error in law and whether its decision was unreasonable. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the tribunal correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions in ordering the repayment of compensation. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the tribunal's decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal could have made it.

The court found that the tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions, and that there was no error in law. The court also determined that the decision was not unreasonable on the facts, as the tribunal had appropriately considered the change in circumstances and the principles governing compensation payments. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal was dismissed and that the tribunal's decision to order the repayment of compensation remained in place. The court's decision affirmed the tribunal's authority to reassess and adjust compensation payments in light of new information or changes in circumstances.

Orders