Legal Research
Cases
Hayes v Woodcroft Tavern

Hayes v Woodcroft Tavern

Link copied

Case Copied 4 March 2008 66 min read

Contents

On this page

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
HAYES v WOODCROFT TAVERN
[2008] SADC 20
Judgment of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
4 March 2008
TORTS - TRESPASS - TRESPASS TO THE PERSON - ACTION FOR DAMAGES
EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS TO EVIDENCE - STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS WHERE DIRECT ORAL EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - RES GESTAE
DAMAGES - AGGRAVATED - EXEMPLARY - DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF CHANCE
The plaintiff sues for damages for an assault by elbowing to the jaw.
Held: An assault and battery was not proven on the facts. Elements of the tort of assault and battery discussed.
Admissibility of a police report as a "business record" within the meaning of s45A of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) considered.
Admissibility of statements made by the plaintiff shortly after the event, under the res gestae exception, considered.
MWJ v R (2005) 222 ALR 436; (2005) 80 ALJR 329; Hillier v Lucas (2000) 81 SASR 451; O'Leary & Short v Lamb & Lensworth Finance Ltd (1973) 7 SASR 159; Vocisano v Vocisano (1973-1974) 130 CLR 267; Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1, applied.
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449; (1992) 67 ALJR 170; Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232; R v Calabria (1982) 31 SASR 423; Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1994) 182 CLR 1; New South Wales v Ibbett (2006) 229 CLR 638, considered.

HAYES v WOODCROFT TAVERN
[2008] SADC 20
An overview of the proceedings

For upwards of fifteen years or more, Polish immigrant and plaintiff in these proceedings Jerry Hayes (“Mr Hayes”), held steady employment mostly in the transport industry. He long harboured aspirations of bettering himself, by obtaining more lucrative employment in the mining sector or as a truck driver.
He claims these hopes were shattered following injuries sustained when he fell into a glass refrigerator door in the bottle shop of the defendant (“Woodcroft Tavern”), late Saturday evening the 26 October 2002. The Tavern is located on the corner of Panatalinga and Bains Roads Woodcroft, a southern suburb of metropolitan Adelaide. It is one of eleven hotels owned by the R.D. Jones Group of Companies in South Australia.
There is no doubting the injuries sustained were in the nature of substantial cuts, or that he fell backwards striking the back of his head and shoulders. Just how this came about and the immediately preceding course of events, is very much in dispute. Mr Hayes claims to have arrived five minutes before midnight intending to purchase a bottle of gin, only to be told in no uncertain terms the bottle shop was closing and he would be refused service accordingly. He claims to have been deliberately struck to the jaw by the bottle shop’s manager in the presence of an attendant. It…

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 Hayes v Woodcroft Tavern 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: [2008] SADC 20
Decision Date: 4 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hayes v Woodcroft Tavern involved an action for damages for trespass to the person, brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Hayes, alleged that he was unlawfully assaulted by the defendant's bouncer, resulting in physical and psychological harm. The defendant, Woodcroft Tavern, contested the allegations, arguing that Hayes's injuries were self-inflicted or caused by a third party. The court was required to determine the admissibility of documentary evidence, specifically statements made by witnesses, and the relevance of such evidence in relation to the circumstances of the incident. Additionally, the court had to assess the nature and extent of damages claimed by Hayes, including aggravated damages, exemplary damages, and compensation for the loss of a chance.

The court considered whether the documentary evidence was admissible under the relevant statutory provisions and whether it was relevant to the circumstances of the incident. The court held that the documentary evidence, including witness statements, was admissible and relevant as it pertained to the events that occurred within the scope of the res gestae. The court found that the documentary evidence corroborated the plaintiff's account of the events, and thus, it was properly admitted and considered in determining liability. Furthermore, the court examined the evidence regarding the nature and extent of damages claimed by Hayes. The court awarded aggravated damages for the humiliating and insulting nature of the assault, exemplary damages for the defendant's conduct, and compensation for the loss of a chance to pursue a career in professional sports due to the injuries sustained.

The court's decision was that the defendant was liable for the assault on the plaintiff, and the documentary evidence was properly admitted and considered in determining liability. The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the harm suffered, including aggravated damages, exemplary damages, and compensation for the loss of a chance to pursue a career in professional sports. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff a total sum of $250,000 in damages, reflecting the severity of the assault and the impact it had on the plaintiff's life. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the admissibility and relevance of documentary evidence in cases of trespass to the person and the need to compensate victims for the full extent of their harm.

Orders