Cosgrove v Culloton - [2014] WADC 146

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: COSGROVE -v- CULLOTON [2014] WADC 146

CORAM: GOETZE DCJ

HEARD: 1-3 SEPTEMBER 2014

DELIVERED : 23 OCTOBER 2014

FILE NO/S: CIV 777 of 2012

BETWEEN: GEOFFREY GRANT COSGROVE
Plaintiff
AND
JEFFREY MICHAEL CULLOTON
Defendant

Catchwords:

Claim for damages for assault and battery - Assessment of damages - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002
Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913
Criminal Code
Evidence Act 1906

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $107,432

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr H C Quail
Defendant: No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Bradley Bayly Legal
Defendant: In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Robinswood Pty Ltd (2001) 24 WAR 284
May v Thomas [2014] WASCA 176

GOETZE DCJ:

Introduction

The plaintiff, Geoffrey Grant Cosgrove, has pleaded that at about 2.30 am on 12 April 2009, at a wedding at the premises known as 'Grand View Farm' on Midlands Road, Three Springs, the defendant, Jeffrey Michael Culloton, 'committed battery upon [him] by pushing him to the ground and punching him approximately three times to the face and head'.
Mr Cosgrove has pleaded that, as a consequence of the alleged battery, he suffered injury, loss and damage. Mr Cosgrove also alleges that his injuries were caused by Mr Culloton's negligence.
By his defence, Mr Culloton has denied the alleged battery and negligence. He has further denied that Mr Cosgrove is entitled to the relief sought by him.
The defence also alleges that Mr Cosgrove was intoxicated, directed offensive and insulting remarks at Mr Culloton and further, that Mr Cosgrove challenged Mr Culloton to a fight and struck him with a beer bottle. Mr Culloton has pleaded that he acted in self‑defence, that Mr Cosgrove was contributorily negligent in causing his own injuries and that he voluntarily assumed the risk of being injured.
The primary issue therefore is whether the incident occurred as alleged by Mr Cosgrove, and if so, the quantum of damage, if any, to which Mr Cosgrove is entitled in respect of any injury, loss and damage suffered as a consequence thereof. Other issues include the defences pleaded by Mr Culloton.
The Civil Liability Act (2002) does not apply to the common law claim concerning an alleged trespass to the person and battery by reason that, if it is established, it was an unlawful act done with an intention to cause personal injury as set out in item 1(a) of the table to s 3A Civil Liability Act.

Geoffrey Cosgrove

Mr Cosgrove was born on 4 April 1984 and was, at all material times, a farmer at Mingenew, near Three Springs. It was his brother's wedding at which the incident is alleged to have occurred.
Mr Cosgrove, then aged nearly 25 years, attended the wedding with his then fiancé, Fiona, whom he later married in October 2009.

Jeffrey Culloton

Mr Culloton attended the wedding as the husband…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cosgrove v Culloton

Details

AGLC: Cosgrove v Culloton [2014] WADC 146
Case: [2014] WADC 146
Decision Date: 23 OCTOBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a claim for damages for assault and battery brought by Mr Cosgrove against Mr Culloton. The dispute arose following an incident where Mr Culloton allegedly assaulted Mr Cosgrove. The matter was heard and determined in the County Court of Victoria. Mr Cosgrove sought compensation for the physical and psychological harm he claimed to have suffered as a result of the assault, including damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost earnings.

The legal issues central to the case involved the assessment of damages for the alleged assault and battery. The court had to determine the extent of the injuries sustained by Mr Cosgrove and the extent to which Mr Culloton was liable for those injuries. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded, taking into account the nature and extent of the harm suffered, as well as the principles of mitigation and proportionality in awarding damages.

The court found that Mr Culloton was liable for the assault and battery against Mr Cosgrove. In assessing the damages, the court considered the medical evidence and expert reports regarding the physical and psychological injuries sustained by Mr Cosgrove. The court also took into account the impact of the assault on Mr Cosgrove's ability to work and his overall quality of life. The court awarded Mr Cosgrove a total sum for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost earnings, reflecting the specific circumstances of the case and the injuries sustained. The court emphasised that the assessment of damages in cases of this nature must be determined on their own facts, considering the unique circumstances and evidence presented.

Orders