Underwood v Underwood

Case [2018] WADC 13


UNDERWOOD -v- UNDERWOOD [2018] WADC 13



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2018] WADC 13
Case No:APP:56/20174 DECEMBER 2017
Coram:GETHING DCJ31/01/18
PERTH
39Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Award reduced
PDF Version
Parties:SARAH FAYE UNDERWOOD
JEANETTE UNDERWOOD

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation
Appeal
Extent to which an applicant for compensation is permitted to adduce evidence going beyond the facts on which the offender was convicted
Aggravation of pre­existing injuries

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

Case References:

AH v RW [2016] WADC 114
ALD v NCD [2012] WADC 45
Armstrong v Saxby [2016] WADC 87
B v B [2004] WASC 6
B v T [2011] WADC 98
B v W (1989) 6 SR (WA) 79
Baker v Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (1998) 20 SR (WA) 377
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 27; (1992) 176 CLR 408
Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70
Bentham v Wass [2004] WADC 47
Bodney v The Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation [2000] WADC 214
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
Cahill v Smith [2015] WADC 148
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) [1984] HCA 7; (1984) 153 CLR 521
Curnow v Garnant [2012] WADC 72
Dincer v Giancristofaro [2015] WADC 49
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666, 673
Fairhead v Quartermaine [2010] WADC 1
G & N v R [2006] WADC 208; (2006) 48 SR (WA) 301
Gabriel v Kyanga [2011] WADC 218
Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30; (1990) 64 ALJR 458
Garton v McCormack (2002) 30 SR (WA) 307
Gleeson v Lee (1996) 18 SR (WA) 353
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported, WASC, Library No 4012, 15 December 1980) 5
Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] 78
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
Houlahan v Pitchen [2009] WASCA 104
Hutchings v Lachlan [2012] WADC 89
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298
JY [2013] WADC 187
KMA v DFS [2010] WADC 6
Krukiewicz v Hayes [2004] WADC 242
Labib v Histon [2017] WADC 39
Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19; (1952) 85 CLR 352
Lyle v Soc [2009] WASCA 3
M v J and J v J (Unreported WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (No 2) [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506
McDavitt v McDavitt [No 2] [2013] WADC 198
MDC v BLR [2015] WADC 107
MJN v MAJS (2003) 35 SR (WA) 219
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118
Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164
Re AK [2016] WADC 156
Re Faengsungnoen [2012] WADC 59
Re Hondros [1973]…

Continue reading Underwood v Underwood

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
Case
[2018] WADC 13
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Underwood v Underwood involved an appeal by the respondent against an award of criminal injuries compensation. The applicant, seeking compensation for injuries sustained due to criminal activities, argued that the award should be increased based on evidence not considered during the original conviction proceedings. This included evidence of the aggravation of pre-existing injuries, which the applicant claimed were exacerbated by the criminal acts in question.

The primary legal issue before the court was the extent to which an applicant for criminal injuries compensation could adduce evidence that goes beyond the facts on which the offender was convicted. Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant could present new evidence regarding the aggravation of pre-existing injuries to support an increased compensation award. The court examined whether such evidence could be considered under the statutory framework governing criminal injuries compensation.

The court held that the applicant was not permitted to present evidence beyond the facts on which the offender was convicted to increase the award of compensation. The court reasoned that the statutory scheme for criminal injuries compensation was designed to be straightforward and not to encourage extensive litigation over compensation amounts. The court found that the evidence regarding the aggravation of pre-existing injuries did not alter the original facts of the case or the nature of the injuries sustained, and thus could not be used to increase the award. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the award of compensation was reduced.

The court's decision resulted in the reduction of the award of criminal injuries compensation to the applicant, aligning with the statutory framework that restricts the scope of evidence that can be considered in such proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Award reduced

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.