O'Meley v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [2001] NSWDC 30

New South Wales District Court

CITATION : O'Meley v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [2001] NSWDC 30 TRIBUNAL : Victims Compensation Tribunal PARTIES : Colleen O'Meley Victims Compensation Fund Corporation FILE NUMBER(S) : 260 of 2001 CORAM: Twigg DCJ CATCHWORDS: natural justice - sufficient reasons - relevant considerations - question of law LEGISLATION CITED: Victims Compensation Act 1996 Kioa v West(1985) 159 CLR 550 ; CASES CITED: Azzopadi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd 4 NSWLR 139; Ambulance Service of New South Wales v Daniel (2000) 19 NSWCCR 697 ; Pickwell's Case (2001) NSWCA 462 DATES OF HEARING: 7/2/02 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 7 February 2002

JUDGMENT: HIS HONOUR JUDGE TWIGG QC: Colleen Maree O'Meley ("the appellant") brings an appeal to the District Court on a question of law pursuant to s 39(1) of the Victims Compensation Act 1996. That section, in its phraseology, permits an applicant for statutory compensation, with the leave of the Court, to bring to this Court a question of law arising on any determination of the application by the Tribunal.

The appellant lodged an application for compensation with the Victims Compensation Tribunal on 12 February 1999. She was born on 27 September 1960 and she alleged that, at 2.30pm on 8 May 1997, she suffered an injury as a result of an offender approaching her and damaging her tape recorder by jumping on it and then by picking up a glass, smashing it on a verandah railing, and striking the victim twice, cutting her seriously on the chin.

The file of the Tribunal is before me as exhibit A and the Police report is part of the file. That indicates that, on 15 January 1999, there was an entry, often referred to as a COPS entry, of a report by her saying that she was injured at a demonstration at the Southern Cross university on 7 May 1997 by a male person whom she could not identify; that he broke a glass and cut her chin with a piece of broken glass. The note of the informant, or rather the Police person is that the allegation is regarded as doubtful.