Victims Compensation Fund v Brown

The Victims Compensation Fund (the Fund) appealed a decision of the District Court of New South Wales concerning a claim for compensation by Mr. Brown under the *Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996* (NSW). The dispute centred on the interpretation of clause 5 of Schedule 1, Table 1 of the Act, which stipulated that compensation for "shock" was payable only if both the symptoms and the resulting disability persisted for more than six weeks. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine whether the word "and" in this clause should be interpreted as a conjunctive "and" or a disjunctive "or".

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the proper construction of clause 5 of Schedule 1, Table 1 of the *Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996*. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the requirement for compensation for shock, that both symptoms and disability persist for more than six weeks, meant that *both* conditions must be met, or if the persistence of *either* symptoms *or* disability for that period would suffice. This involved a question of statutory interpretation regarding the meaning of the conjunction "and" in a legislative context.

The majority of the Court of Appeal, comprising Mason P and McClellan J, held that the word "and" in clause 5 should be interpreted disjunctively, meaning "or". Their Honours reasoned that a conjunctive interpretation would render the provision unduly restrictive and potentially defeat the purpose of the Act, which was to provide compensation to victims of crime. They considered that the legislative intent was to compensate for the impact of shock, and that requiring both symptoms and disability to persist for an extended period was an unnecessarily high threshold. Spigelman CJ dissented, finding that the plain meaning of "and" in the provision was conjunctive. The majority allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the District Court for redetermination.