Exton v State of NSW - [2017] NSWDC 83

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Exton v State of NSW [2017] NSWDC 83
Hearing dates: 20, 21 & 22 February 2017
Date of orders: 13 April 2017
Decision date: 13 April 2017
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Judge Levy SC
Decision:
1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff including general compensatory damages, general aggravated damages, exemplary damages, and interest, in the total sum of $38,072;

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

3. The exhibits may be returned;
4. Liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.
Catchwords: TORTS – intentional torts – alleged assault, battery, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment by police officers; DAMAGES – assessment of damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 100
Crown Proceedings Act 1988, s 5
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, s 99
Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983, s 8
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 6.12(8)
Cases Cited: Adams v Kennedy [2000] NSWCA 152; (2000) 49 NSWLR 78
Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar; Liverpool Corporation v Husan [1971] EWCA J0728-1; [1971] 3 WLR 571
Chen v State of NSW [2014] NSWCA 41
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council [1925] UKHL 3; [1925] AC 270
Gray v Motor Accidents Commission [1998] HCA 70; (1998) 196 CLR 1
Hamed v State of NSW [2009] NSWSC 242
MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic [1991] HCA 3; (1991) 171 CLR 657
NSW v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57; (2006) 229 CLR 638
NSW v Landini [2010] NSWCA 157
NSW v Radford [2010] NSWCA 276
Radford v State of NSW [2010] NSWCA 276
Ruddock v Taylor [2005] HCA 48, (2005) 222 CLR 612
Smith v State of NSW [2016] NSWDC 55
State of NSW v Abed [2014] NSWCA 419
State of NSW v Quirk [2012] NSWCA 216
State of NSW v Riley [2003] NSWCA 208; (2008) 57 NSWLR 496
State of NSW v Tyszyk [2008] NSWCA 107
State of NSW v Zreika [2012] NSWCA 37
Symes v Mahon [1922] SASR 447
Williams v The Queen [1986] HCA 88; (1988) 161 CLR 278
Zaravinos v State of New South Wales [2004] NSWCA 320
Texts Cited: John G Fleming, The Law of Torts, 10th ed, 2011, p 34
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th ed, 2007 reprint, p 257
Furzer Crestani, Assessment Handbook, October 2016, pp 14 - 15
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Trent Shane Exton (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr E Anderson (Plaintiff)
Ms G Mahony (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Randall Legal (Plaintiff)
McCabes (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/131112
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Table of Contents

Nature of case

[1] – [3]

Evidence overview

[4] – [5]

Uncontested factual background

[6] – [19]

Issues

[20] – [21]

Legal principles to be applied

[22] – [30]

Review of factual evidence

[31] – [108]

The plaintiff

[32] – [44]

Mr Cotroneo

[45] – [49]

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Exton v State of NSW and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWDC 83
Decision Date: 13 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an action by Mr Exton against the State of New South Wales, involving allegations of assault, battery, wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment by police officers. The dispute came before the court on a trial basis, with the plaintiff seeking various forms of damages including general compensatory damages, general aggravated damages, exemplary damages, and interest. The defendant, the State of New South Wales, contested the claims, arguing that the police officers had acted within the scope of their duties and without any intent to cause harm.

The legal issues the court was required to decide centred on whether the conduct of the police officers amounted to the alleged intentional torts and, if so, the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded. The court had to determine if the police officers' actions were justified under the circumstances and if there were any mitigating or aggravating factors that should be considered in assessing the damages. The court also needed to examine the evidence to ascertain whether the plaintiff had suffered any compensable harm and to what extent.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies, video footage, and expert opinions. The court found that the police officers' conduct did indeed amount to assault, battery, wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment. The court held that the police officers had acted outside the scope of their lawful duties and had used excessive force. As a result, the plaintiff was awarded general compensatory damages for physical and psychological injuries, general aggravated damages for the manner in which the assault and arrest were carried out, and exemplary damages for the oppressive and discriminatory nature of the conduct. The court also awarded interest on the damages. The total sum awarded to the plaintiff was $38,072.

The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff, including the awarded damages and interest. The defendant was directed to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, unless otherwise ordered. The exhibits were to be returned, and the plaintiff was granted liberty to apply on three days’ notice if further or other orders were required.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff including general compensatory damages, general aggravated damages, exemplary damages, and interest, in the total sum of $38,072;

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

3. The exhibits may be returned;

4. Liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Exton v State of NSW [2017] NSWDC 83
Hearing dates:	20, 21 & 22 February 2017
Date of orders:	13 April 2017
Decision date:	13 April 2017
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Judge Levy SC
Decision:	1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff including general compensatory damages, general aggravated damages, exemplary damages, and interest, in the total sum of $38,072; 2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered; 3. The exhibits may be returned; 4. Liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.
Catchwords:	TORTS – intentional torts – alleged assault, battery, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment by police officers; DAMAGES – assessment of damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 100 Crown Proceedings Act 1988, s 5 Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, s 99 Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983, s 8 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 6.12(8)
Cases Cited:	Adams v Kennedy [2000] NSWCA 152; (2000) 49 NSWLR 78 Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar; Liverpool Corporation v Husan [1971] EWCA J0728-1; [1971] 3 WLR 571 Chen v State of NSW [2014] NSWCA 41 Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council [1925] UKHL 3; [1925] AC 270 Gray v Motor Accidents Commission [1998] HCA 70; (1998) 196 CLR 1 Hamed v State of NSW [2009] NSWSC 242 MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic [1991] HCA 3; (1991) 171 CLR 657 NSW v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57; (2006) 229 CLR 638 NSW v Landini [2010] NSWCA 157 NSW v Radford [2010] NSWCA 276 Radford v State of NSW [2010] NSWCA 276 Ruddock v Taylor [2005] HCA 48, (2005) 222 CLR 612 Smith v State of NSW [2016] NSWDC 55 State of NSW v Abed [2014] NSWCA 419 State of NSW v Quirk [2012] NSWCA 216 State of NSW v Riley [2003] NSWCA 208; (2008) 57 NSWLR 496 State of NSW v Tyszyk [2008] NSWCA 107 State of NSW v Zreika [2012] NSWCA 37 Symes v Mahon [1922] SASR 447 Williams v The Queen [1986] HCA 88; (1988) 161 CLR 278 Zaravinos v State of New South Wales [2004] NSWCA 320
Texts Cited:	John G Fleming, The Law of Torts, 10th ed, 2011, p 34 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th ed, 2007 reprint, p 257 Furzer Crestani, Assessment Handbook, October 2016, pp 14 - 15
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Trent Shane Exton (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr E Anderson (Plaintiff) Ms G Mahony (Defendant) Solicitors: Randall Legal (Plaintiff) McCabes (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2016/131112
Publication restriction:	None

Nature of case	[1] – [3]
Evidence overview	[4] – [5]
Uncontested factual background	[6] – [19]
Issues	[20] – [21]
Legal principles to be applied	[22] – [30]
Review of factual evidence	[31] – [108]
The plaintiff	[32] – [44]
Mr Cotroneo	[45] – [49]