Harley v State of New South Wales - [2025] NSWDC 358

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Harley v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWDC 358
Hearing dates: 10 – 11 April 2025
Date of orders: 12 September 2025
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Catsanos SC DCJ
Decision:
(1)   Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $300.
(2)   Costs, and if pursued, any claim for interest, are reserved.
(3)   I will make directions in consultation with the parties for the purpose of dealing with questions of costs and interest.

Catchwords:
TORTS – trespass to goods – false imprisonment – whether the plaintiff consented to search – Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) s 21 – whether police officer had reasonable grounds to suspect plaintiff had possession of prohibited drug
DAMAGES – nominal damages – no entitlement to aggravated or exemplary damages

Legislation Cited:
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), ss 21, 34A

Cases Cited:
Emde v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWCA 41
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; [1990] HCA 26
Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 70
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361; [2011] HCA 11
Prior v Mole (2017) 261 CLR 265; [2017] HCA 10
Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees [1966] HCA 21; (1966) 115 CLR 266
Reyes-Carrion v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWDC 28
State of New South Wales v Dennis [2025] NSWCA 118
State of NSW v Riley (2003) 57 NSWLR 496; [2003] NSWCA 208

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Melissa Harley (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Canceri (Plaintiff)
M Gollan (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Aussie Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Makinson d’Apice Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/00291402

JUDGMENT

Introduction

At about 4:00pm on 5 June 2022, the plaintiff came to the attention of Police at Wolli Creek Railway Station when she was seen to jump over ticket barriers in an apparent act of fare evasion.
After she walked up the stairs of the station the plaintiff was approached by Senior Constable McCartney (the Senior Constable) who, it is accepted, lawfully stopped her and issued her with an infringement notice for travelling on a train without holding a ticket.
In the course of this interaction the Senior Constable conducted a search of the plaintiff’s handbag.
The plaintiff contends that the search and detention of her for that purpose were unlawful, entitling her to damages for trespass to goods and false imprisonment.
The issues for my consideration are:

Did the plaintiff consent to the search? If so, it is accepted her claim will fail.

If the plaintiff did not consent to the search, whether the search was lawful and, specifically, whether it complied with s 21(1)(d) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA). If the search was lawful, again it is accepted the plaintiff’s claim will fail.

If the plaintiff succeeds,…

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 Harley v State of New South Wales

Details

AGLC: Harley v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWDC 358
Case: [2025] NSWDC 358
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Harley, sued the State of New South Wales over an incident involving the alleged false imprisonment by a police officer. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed that the police officer had no reasonable grounds for suspecting him of possessing a prohibited drug, and therefore, the search and subsequent detention were unlawful. Harley argued that he did not consent to the search and that the officer's actions amounted to trespass to goods and false imprisonment.

The court was required to determine whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that the plaintiff had possession of a prohibited drug, as required under section 21 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW). The court also needed to assess whether the plaintiff had consented to the search and if his detention constituted false imprisonment. Additionally, the court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to aggravated or exemplary damages in addition to nominal damages.

The court found that the police officer did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of possessing a prohibited drug, and thus, the search was unlawful. The plaintiff did not consent to the search, and his detention amounted to false imprisonment. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to nominal damages for the trespass to goods and false imprisonment but denied any claim for aggravated or exemplary damages. The court awarded the plaintiff $300 in nominal damages. The court reserved costs and any claim for interest, with directions to be made in consultation with the parties for the purpose of dealing with questions of costs and interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $300.

(2) Costs, and if pursued, any claim for interest, are reserved.

(3) I will make directions in consultation with the parties for the purpose of dealing with questions of costs and interest.

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:	Harley v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWDC 358
Hearing dates:	10 – 11 April 2025
Date of orders:	12 September 2025
Decision date:	12 September 2025
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Catsanos SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $300. (2) Costs, and if pursued, any claim for interest, are reserved. (3) I will make directions in consultation with the parties for the purpose of dealing with questions of costs and interest.
Catchwords:	TORTS – trespass to goods – false imprisonment – whether the plaintiff consented to search – Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) s 21 – whether police officer had reasonable grounds to suspect plaintiff had possession of prohibited drug DAMAGES – nominal damages – no entitlement to aggravated or exemplary damages
Legislation Cited:	Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), ss 21, 34A
Cases Cited:	Emde v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWCA 41 George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; [1990] HCA 26 Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 70 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361; [2011] HCA 11 Prior v Mole (2017) 261 CLR 265; [2017] HCA 10 Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees [1966] HCA 21; (1966) 115 CLR 266 Reyes-Carrion v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWDC 28 State of New South Wales v Dennis [2025] NSWCA 118 State of NSW v Riley (2003) 57 NSWLR 496; [2003] NSWCA 208
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Melissa Harley (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: A Canceri (Plaintiff) M Gollan (Defendant) Solicitors: Aussie Lawyers (Plaintiff) Makinson d’Apice Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2024/00291402