Millard v VCFC [2002] NSWDC 10

New South Wales District Court

CITATION : Millard v VCFC [2002] NSWDC 10 TRIBUNAL : Victims Compensation Tribunal PARTIES : Rhonda Millard Victims Compensation Fund Corporation FILE NUMBER(S) : 514 of 2001 CORAM: Sidis DCJ CATCHWORDS: disability - Schedule 1(5) - shock LEGISLATION CITED: Victims Compensation Act 1996 Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Limited (1985) NSWLR 139; CASES CITED: McPhee v S Bennett Limited (1935) 52 WN New South Wales 8; Shirley Rose Walker v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation, District Court, Lismore, 25 November 1999 DATES OF HEARING: 15 February 2002 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15 February 2002

JUDGMENT:

HER HONOUR JUDGE SIDIS: In this matter, the appellant seeks leave to appeal against a determination of the Victims Compensation Tribunal of 29 March 2001. This decision was itself a decision in an appeal from a determination by an assessor of the Tribunal made on 29 September 2000.

The motion was filed out of time. There is no objection on the part of the respondent to the appeal to my extending the time within which the motion should be filed to the date of filing, that is 11 July 2001. I make that order accordingly. There is no objection to the grant of leave, and I make that order accordingly.

I have thus proceeded to hear submissions in respect of the appeal, which effectively go to the issue of whether there is a question of law to be determined on the appeal.

It is said for the appellant that the determination of the Tribunal was against the weight of the evidence, and the appellant relies upon the reasons of President Kirby as he was then in Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Limited (1985) NSWLR 139 at 151 when he suggested that an error of law arises where there is a manifest error or an illogicality in the reasoning process.