Sutton v Victims Compensation Tribunal [2013] NSWSC 52

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sutton v Victims Compensation Tribunal [2013] NSWSC 52 Hearing dates: 31/1/2013 Decision date: 07 February 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Administrative Law Before: Harrison AsJ Decision: (1) Leave to appeal is refused. (2) The appeal is dismissed. (3) The decision of his Honour Magistrate Lulham dated 28 May 2012 is affirmed. (4) The amended summons filed 31 July 2012 is dismissed. (5) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 55 Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act - whether tribunal erred at law - whether unreasonable on the facts to make order of restitution against plaintiff Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Local Courts Act 2007 Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 Cases Cited: Nguyen v Victims Compensation Fund [2001] NSWCA 264 Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 282 Category: Principal judgment Parties: William Lewis Sutton (Plaintiff) Victims Compensation Tribunal (Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: File Number(s): 2012/191863 Decision under appeal Date of Decision: 2012-05-28 00:00:00 Before: Lulham LCM File Number(s): RT135521

Judgment 1HER HONOUR: This is an appeal pursuant to s 55 of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996. The appeal is against a decision of Victims Compensation Tribunal Chairperson his Honour Lulham LCM made on 28 May 2012. 2By amended summons filed 31 July 2012, the plaintiff seeks firstly, an order setting aside the order of Local Court Magistrate Lulham of 28 May 2012, that the plaintiff pay the defendant $8000, in proceedings for debtor D072236, in which an order for restitution was made; and secondly, that the matter be sent back to the Victims Compensation Tribunal to be dealt with according to law. 3The plaintiff is William Lewis Sutton. The defendant is the Victims Compensation Tribunal (the Tribunal). The plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Joe Weller dated 29 January 2013. The defendant relied on the affidavit of Matthew Ting affirmed 24 October 2012 and the affidavit of Parama Srikanth affirmed 24 October 2012.