FRL v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2023] NSWCATAD 131

FRL v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2023] NSWCATAD 131

The Tribunal found that FRL was eligible for victims support because the compensation paid by the court did not cover all types of support claimed or all losses suffered, and that s 44(4) of the Act is designed to prevent double recovery, not to bar all additional support where partial compensation was paid. The decision under review was affected by error in its interpretation of s 25(1).

Parties
Applicant: FRL; Respondent: Commissioner of Victims Rights
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Applicant eligible; decision set aside; matter remitted
Legal Topics
Victims Support Eligibility, Administrative Review, Compensation Awards, Double Dipping Principle
Administrative Law Victims Compensation Victims Support Eligibility Administrative Review Compensation Awards Double Dipping Principle

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FRL

Applicant

Commissioner of Victims Rights

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Final Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether FRL is eligible for victims support under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) given compensation awarded by a court
  2. 2 Interpretation of s 25(1) and s 44(4) of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) and application to the facts

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that FRL was eligible for victims support because the compensation paid by the court did not cover all types of support claimed or all losses suffered, and that s 44(4) of the Act is designed to prevent double recovery, not to bar all additional support where partial compensation was paid. The decision under review was affected by error in its interpretation of s 25(1).

Court Disposition

Applicant eligible; decision set aside; matter remitted

Orders

  • The respondent's decision dated 15 November 2022 is set aside and in substitution it is determined that FRL is eligible for victims support and is the primary victim of an act of violence, which is a series of related acts of violence.
  • The matter is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration pursuant to s 65(1) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) according to law.