Crick v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [2001] NSWDC 28

New South Wales District Court

CITATION : Crick v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [2001] NSWDC 28 TRIBUNAL : Victims Compensation Tribunal PARTIES : Krystyna Crick Victims Compensation Fund Corporation FILE NUMBER(S) : 9898 of 2001 CORAM: Naughton DCJ CATCHWORDS: threshold - exceptional circumstances - jursdiction Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 LEGISLATION CITED: Victims Compensation Act 1996 Victims Compensation Amendment (Compensable Injuries) Regulation 2000 NSW Aboriginal Land Council v Minister (1988) 14 NSWLR 685; Abbott v Minister for Lands (1895) AC 425; CASES CITED: Bromley v Housing Commission for NSW {1985} 3 NSWLR 407 (NSW Court of Appeal); Bathurst City Council v Saban (1985) 55 LGRA 165; National Parks and Wildlife Service v Stables Perisher Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 573; Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 DATES OF HEARING: 14/12/01 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14 December 2001

JUDGMENT:

HIS HONOUR:: This is an application under Part 6 rule 60C of the District Court Rules to extend time in which to make an application for leave to appeal against a determination of the Victims Compensation Tribunal. That determination was made on 3 July 2001. It was served on 18 July 2001. The time limit for making the application for leave to appeal expired on 18 September 2001. That was two months from the date of service of the determination. The application to extend the said time was filed on 28 September 2001. It was therefore 10 days late. The appeal itself had to be filed on or before 18 October 2001 or "within such further time a the District Court may in exceptional circumstances allow". See s.39(2) of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996. The notice of appeal was filed (without leave having been previously granted) on 16 November 2001. That was 29 days after the date of service of the determination (18 July 2001). The ultimate issue in the matter is whether the applicant is entitled to an amount of compensation under the Act for a back condition to which I shall return shortly. If she were entitled to that compensation the quantum of it would be $6,000. On 21 March 1999 the applicant sustained an injury to her back when she was assaulted at a hotel. The applicant was born on 27 November 1947. She was therefore 51 at the date of the injury. She is now 54. On 25 March 1999 the applicant instructed her solicitor to act for her in connection with obtaining compensation under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996. It was not until five months later on 26 August 1999 that her solicitor applied for hospital and ambulance notes preparatory to making the relevant application. Ten and a half months after receiving instructions her solicitor, on 8 February 2000, made a specialist medical appointment for the applicant to see Dr Conrad (an orthopaedic specialist) on 19 April 2000. That consultation occurred on that date. Seven days after his consultation with the applicant Dr Conrad sent his detailed report to the applicant's solicitor. That was on 26 April 2000. In Government Gazette number 88 of 14 July 2000 (page 6232) the statutory threshold for claiming compensation increased from $2,400 to $7,500. On that date (14 July 2000) the Victims Compensation Amendment (Compensible Injuries) Regulation 2000 was published. It provided that as from 14 July 2000 the threshold amount for the purposes of s.20 of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 was $7,500. That threshold was $1,500 more than the $6,000 which the applicant was entitled to under schedule 1 to the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 if she was entitled to any compensation at all for her back injury. That was because of what was said by Dr Conrad in his report to which I have already referred. Dr Conrad concluded: "Under the Victims Compensation Act of 1996 the nearest description is, strained back disabling for more than 13 weeks."