AST v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [2015] NSWCATAD 100

AST v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [2015] NSWCATAD 100

AST's notice of appeal was filed outside the 3 month period in s 36(3)(a) of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996, so what was on foot at commencement of the new Act was an application for an extension of time rather than an appeal. The transitional provisions in cll 2 and 14 of Sch 2 to the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 did not preserve such an application, and cl 16 of the Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2013 expressly excluded s 36(3)(b). AST's statutory compensation application had already been finally determined and was not a pending application under the new Act. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the extension application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Concerning Victims Compensation and an Application for an Extension of Time to Appeal Under S 36(3)(b) of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 / On the Papers; Determination of Jurisdiction
Outcome
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'transitional and Saving Provisions' 'jurisdiction' 'victims Support and Rehabilitation']
['administrative Law' 'victims Compensation'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'transitional and Saving Provisions' 'jurisdiction' 'victims Support and Rehabilitation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review Concerning Victims Compensation and an Application for an Extension of Time to Appeal Under S 36(3)(b) of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 / On the Papers; Determination of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine an application for an extension of time to appeal under s 36(3)(b) of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 after repeal of that Act.' 'Whether the transitional and saving provisions of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 and Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2013 preserved an application to extend time in which to appeal that was made before, but not determined by, the commencement day.' "Whether the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 applied to AST's claim as a pending application for statutory compensation."]

Ratio Decidendi

AST's notice of appeal was filed outside the 3 month period in s 36(3)(a) of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996, so what was on foot at commencement of the new Act was an application for an extension of time rather than an appeal. The transitional provisions in cll 2 and 14 of Sch 2 to the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 did not preserve such an application, and cl 16 of the Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2013 expressly excluded s 36(3)(b). AST's statutory compensation application had already been finally determined and was not a pending application under the new Act. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the extension application.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.']