Hill v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [1999] NSWDC 10

New South Wales District Court

CITATION : Hill v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [1999] NSWDC 10 TRIBUNAL : Victims Compensation Tribunal PARTIES : Sarah Jane Hill Victims Compensation Fund Corporation FILE NUMBER(S) : 75 of 1999 CORAM: Garling DCJ CATCHWORDS: s38 - shock - special grounds LEGISLATION CITED: Victims Compensation Act 1996 CASES CITED: Hately v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation DATES OF HEARING: 27/10/99, 12/11/99 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27 October 1999

JUDGMENT: HIS HONOUR: The appellant appeals against a decision of the Victims Compensation Tribunal. This matter has an interesting history. On 12 January 1997, the appellant was assaulted. The offender was convicted. An application was made for compensation. In support of that application there were two medical reports, one by a general practitioner, Doctor Smith, and one by a psychiatrist, Doctor Delaforce. The matter went to the Assessor. The Assessor assessed the matter and declined to award any amount for shock. The Assessor was clearly wrong. The only evidence before the Assessor was from Doctor Delaforce who said the plaintiff suffered a post traumatic stress disorder. The appellant then sought a review. The appellant then sought to have taken into consideration at the review, an affidavit. The affidavit starts off, "In examining the grounds of the determination of the Victims of Crime Compensation Tribunal, it is noted that the Assessor has referred to references to assaults prior to the matter in question. These matters do not involve physical violence but were matters of verbal harassment. Subsequently to the assault of 12 January I have undergone a change in personality, I am quick to anger, et cetera, et cetera, suffer continual headaches, had a catscan."