Farjudi v Cheng

In the case of Farjudi v Cheng, the plaintiff, Mr Farjudi, sued the defendant, Mr Cheng, for personal injuries sustained during an altercation. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The crux of the case involved a physical confrontation between the two parties, with the plaintiff alleging that the defendant's actions constituted an assault and that his response in self-defence was disproportionate. The plaintiff further claimed damages for psychological injury, aggravated damages, and exemplary damages.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, whether the defendant's actions were an assault and if so, whether the plaintiff's response was proportionate in the circumstances. The court also needed to consider whether the issue of self-defence was estopped due to the defendant's guilty plea to charges arising from the incident. Additionally, the court had to assess the claims of right and duty in the context of self-defence and the proportionality of the plaintiff's response. The assessment of damages for psychological injury, including the award of aggravated and exemplary damages, was another critical issue. Lastly, the admissibility and use of photographs and CCTV footage in substantiating the claims and counterclaims was examined.

The court found that the defendant's actions did amount to an assault. However, it held that the plaintiff's response was not proportionate given the circumstances. The court acknowledged the issue estoppel principle but found that it did not preclude the plaintiff from arguing the proportionality of his response. The court awarded damages for psychological injury, considering the severity and impact of the incident, and also granted aggravated damages. However, it declined to award exemplary damages, finding that while the defendant's actions were serious, they did not exhibit a level of culpability warranting such a penalty. The use of photographs and CCTV footage was deemed relevant and admissible, aiding in the understanding of the events.

The court ordered the proceedings to be adjourned to address costs, interest, and to make final orders. The plaintiff was awarded $210,927 in damages. The defendant was directed to pay the plaintiff's costs, including those from a notice of motion dated 6 November 2015, on an ordinary basis up to 13 April 2015 and on an indemnity basis thereafter. The exhibits were to be retained for 28 days.