Compensation - News
The decision to sue your attacker
17/02/2010
It would be nice to think that all victims of an act of violence could receive adequate compensation for the injuries they sustain.
Indeed sometimes they do.
There is a government pool of money to compensate victims of crime, with a maximum payout of $50,000.
But what happens when the extent of a victim’s injuries goes beyond $50,000? Does that figure adequately compensate the person who suffers post traumatic stress which prevents them from working effectively, in addition to physical injuries?
Not always.
In a recent District Court ruling, David Chia, who was violently beaten in 2006, sued his attacker and received $130,000 in compensation. This is a far better result than he would have achieved if he had relied on the Victims Compensation process.
This begs the question, why don’t all victims sue their attackers?
For good reason.
For a start, the offender cannot always be found. If you can’t prove who assaulted you, you can’t sue them.
But the real reason most victims don’t sue is this; for it to be worthwhile, the person who committed the crime must have sufficient assets to pay damages. If they don’t, you may never be able to recover what you’re owed, even if the Court has ruled in your favour. Indeed, this goes for any claim where the Defendant has no insurer to stand behind.
The reality is that most lawyers won’t take on this kind of case on a “no-win-no-fee” basis, when the financial position of the Defendant is unclear.
Certainly it is possible to do some financial checks to find out if your attacker has assets. For example, a search of public records might reveal if they own property. But even the most detailed searches may not uncover their true financial position. Assets may be cleverly shielded; property may be transferred to a different name.
It’s a risky business. You may find yourself with a hefty legal bill, and no compensation.
Where the Court has ruled in your favour, but the Defendant cannot immediately pay the debt, there are 12 years within which to enforce the judgement. So if their financial situation improves during that time, you may get what you are owed. For example, they may gain employment, or start earning a higher wage.
If the Defendant is employed, the Court can make a ‘garnishee order, whereby part of their wage goes directly to you until the debt is paid. But as the Court will always leave the Defendant enough to live on, if they lose their job, you may not receive your money.
While Chia’s victory is a great outcome, unfortunately this is not a road that many victims of crime are able to take.
11/08/2010 | WHO IS THE ‘NOMINAL DEFENDANT’? What happens if you fall foul of someone else's bad driving on the roads but can’t identify the person responsible...
29/07/2010 | STATE REFUSES TO FUND MARALINGA COURT BATTLE The Rann government in South Australia has refused to meet with representatives of Aboriginal people affected by British nuclear tests...
23/07/2010 | $7.5M FOR HIT-RUN TEEN GEORGINA WOODS She hates school, dreams of being a veterinarian & loves her family pets. Georgina Woods' mum Julie describes her 13-year-old as a typical teenager, except every day is a struggle since a cowardly hit-&-run driver left Georgina for dead...
