Transport Accident Commission v Vanbenthem - [2002] VSC 398

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4253 of 2002

TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION	Plaintiff
v
PETER VANBENTHEM	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J.
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 March 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 September 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	TAC v Vanbenthem
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 398

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal on questions of law – Statutory interpretation – Ordinary words used in ordinary sense - ss. 3(1), 41A Transport Accident Act 1986; s. 3(1) Road Safety Act 1986; s. 148 Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr C. Maxwell, Q.C. with Mr G. Lewis	TAC Law Pty Ltd
For the Defendant	Mr G. Nash, Q.C. with Mr D. Pulling	Slater and Gordon

HIS HONOUR:

This case was heard at the same time as Transport Accident Commission v Lees[1] and, to some extent at least, involved similar issues of law. However, although in general this judgment mirrors that in Lees and reference will be made to it, the different facts and procedural peculiarities of this case warrant its being the subject of a separate judgment.
[1][2002] VSC 397.

On 23 August 1999 Peter Vanbenthem suffered serious injuries when he lost control of a motorcycle he was riding and struck a tree in an area known as "The Pines" located off Trade Park Drive, Tullamarine. The motorcycle was unregistered and, in its then form, unregistrable.

On 5 October 1999 Mr Vanbenthem sought compensation from the Transport Accident Commission ("the Commission") pursuant to the Transport Accident Act 1986. His application was rejected on 20 January 2000 on the ground that he had failed to furnish the Commission with information which it sought to enable it to determine whether his injuries were sustained in a transport accident as defined by s. 3(1) of that Act and that in any event, even if he was injured in a transport accident, the Commission was not liable to pay him compensation because he was driving an unregistered motor vehicle on private land at the time of the accident and was thus excluded from compensation by s. 41A of the Act.

Mr Vanbenthem sought a review of the Commission’s decision in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). On 21 December 2001, the Tribunal set aside the Commission's determination not to pay compensation to Mr Vanbenthem and substituted a determination that it do so.

Section 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, which confers a right upon disappointed litigants before the Tribunal to seek leave to appeal to this Court, provides that an application for leave to appeal must be made no later than twenty-eight days after the day upon which the order of the Tribunal is made. In this instance the Commission issued its originating motion seeking leave to appeal on 30 January 2002, some nine days out of time. By an amended originating motion filed on 26…

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 Transport Accident Commission v Vanbenthem

Details

AGLC: Transport Accident Commission v Vanbenthem [2002] VSC 398
Case: [2002] VSC 398
Decision Date: 13 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Transport Accident Commission v Vanbenthem, the Transport Accident Commission sought to appeal a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had ruled in favour of the respondent, Vanbenthem. The dispute centred on the interpretation of certain statutory provisions, specifically sections 3(1) and 41A of the Transport Accident Act 1986, section 3(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986, and section 148 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of these provisions, leading to an outcome that was contrary to the legislative intent.

The primary legal issues the court was required to address involved the proper interpretation of the statutory language, particularly the phrase "ordinary words used in their ordinary sense." The appellant contended that the Tribunal had failed to apply the ordinary meaning of the words in these sections, thus misinterpreting the statutes. The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's interpretation was legally sound and whether there was any error in the application of the statutory provisions. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the Tribunal had the authority to make the decisions it did under the relevant statutes.

The court held that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the statutory provisions using the ordinary meaning of the words. It found that the Tribunal had appropriately applied the legislative intent and had not erred in its interpretation of the statutes. The court emphasised that the phrase "ordinary words used in their ordinary sense" was a clear directive to interpret the words in their common usage, and the Tribunal had adhered to this directive. The court further held that the Tribunal had the authority to make the decisions it did under the provisions of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld.

Orders