Legal Research
Cases
De Reus v Gray

De Reus v Gray

Case [2003] VSCA 84 27 June 2003

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 5399 of 2001

RAY DE REUS, STATE OF VICTORIA AND JANET MARIAN PIKE
	Appellants
v.
CORINNE GRAY
	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., ORMISTON and CHARLES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	31 March and 1 April 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 June 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 84

---

Damages – For mental harm and distress as a result of “strip-search” at police station – Jury asked and awarding damages for different causes of action when those causes of action pleaded as alternatives and the injury for which damages were claimed was the same – Jury verdicts as to both general and exemplary damages conflicting and inconsistent – Whether aggravated compensatory damages can be assessed differentially against two or more joint tortfeasors who are liable in respect of the same damage – Nature of exemplary and aggravated damages discussed – Court exercising power under s.14 Supreme Court Act 1986 to re-assess damages.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr. S.W. Kaye, Q.C. and Mr. P.C. Golombek	Victorian Government Solicitor
For the Respondent	Mr. D.F. Hore-Lacy, S.C. and Mr. J.R.C. Gordon	Slater & Gordon

WINNEKE, P.:

This is an appeal by Ray De Reus (“De Reus”), Janet Pike (“Pike”) and the State of Victoria (“the State”) against jury verdicts and judgments entered in accordance therewith in favour of Corinne Gray (“the respondent”) in the County Court at Melbourne on 31 March and 3 April 2001 respectively. De Reus, Pike and the State were three of the defendants in the court below, and Gray was the plaintiff.

In the proceedings, Gray claimed damages for mental harm and distress as a result of being “strip-searched” at the Narre Warren Police Station on 20 May 1994. At the relevant time, De Reus was the officer in charge of the station and Sandy Jo Hatch (“Hatch”), a young probationary police officer, was on duty at the Station under De Reus’ command. Hatch was named as the first defendant in the proceedings. However, in the events that happened, judgment was entered in her favour against the respondent; accordingly she is not a party to the appeal.

The evidence disclosed that, in 1994, the Narre Warren Police Station was a gazetted “police gaol” in which persons in lawful custody could be detained for limited periods. At the relevant time, the respondent was a married woman (living apart from her husband) and mother of four young boys. She was about 30 years of age. Before 1994 she had apparently incurred parking fines which, with the added costs and expenses, she was unable to pay. She was, it seems, subject to an order requiring her to pay approximately $400, in default two days imprisonment. She failed to comply and, by May 1994, warrants were issued for her imprisonment. Sheriff’s officers arrived at her premises on 18 May to execute the warrants. She was told that she would be required to go to a police “lock-up”, whence she would…

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 De Reus v Gray

Details

AGLC: De Reus v Gray [2003] VSCA 84
Case: [2003] VSCA 84
Decision Date: 27 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In De Reus v Gray, the plaintiff sought damages for mental harm and distress arising from a strip-search conducted at a police station. The defendants, Gray and another, were police officers involved in the incident. The case reached the Supreme Court of Victoria, where it was necessary to determine the appropriate legal issues concerning the assessment of damages and the liability of the joint tortfeasors.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the jury should have been directed to consider damages for different causes of action when these causes were pleaded as alternatives, and whether the court could award aggravated compensatory damages differentially against multiple joint tortfeasors for the same injury. Additionally, the court had to address the nature of exemplary and aggravated damages and consider whether it had the power to reassess damages under section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

The court held that the jury should not have been asked to consider damages for different causes of action when these causes were pleaded as alternatives and the injury claimed was the same. The court found that the jury’s verdicts on both general and exemplary damages were conflicting and inconsistent. It was determined that aggravated compensatory damages could be assessed differentially against multiple joint tortfeasors liable for the same damage. The court exercised its power under section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 to reassess damages, resulting in a re-evaluation of the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries.

Orders