Diamantis v VCFC [2002] NSWDC 18

Diamantis v VCFC [2002] NSWDC 18

The chairperson exercised discretion as required by section 30(1) and had regard to relevant matters; there is no error of law or fact amounting to error of law. Mere disagreement with the outcome is not sufficient ground for appellate interference.

Parties
Applicant: Panagiotis Diamantis; Respondent: Victims Compensation Fund Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal on a Question of Law / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Victims Compensation, Exercise of Discretion, Review of Tribunal Decisions
Compensation Law Victims Compensation Exercise of Discretion Review of Tribunal Decisions

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Panagiotis Diamantis

Applicant

Victims Compensation Fund Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal on a Question of Law / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chairperson of the Victims Compensation Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly consider relevant matters as required under section 30(1)(b) of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 in declining to make an award of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi

The chairperson exercised discretion as required by section 30(1) and had regard to relevant matters; there is no error of law or fact amounting to error of law. Mere disagreement with the outcome is not sufficient ground for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • appeal dismissed
  • applicant to pay the respondent's costs