Heugh v Knight - [2017] WADC 84

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: HEUGH -v- KNIGHT [2017] WADC 84

CORAM: STONE DCJ

HEARD: 30 MARCH-3 APRIL 2017

DELIVERED : 29 JUNE 2017

FILE NO/S: CIV 1407 of 2016

BETWEEN: TETYANA HEUGH
First Plaintiff
JOHN PHILLIP HEUGH
Second Plaintiff
AND
GARRY KNIGHT
Defendant

Catchwords:

Torts - Trespass - Assault - Battery - Self-defence - Damages - Aggravated damages - Exemplary damages - Credibility - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 244, s 248, s 254

Result:

The first plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed
The second plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed
The defendant's counterclaim against the second defendant is dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                  :     Mr P G McGowan
Second Plaintiff             :     Mr P G McGowan
Defendant:     Ms L B Black

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                  :     Bennett & Co
Second Plaintiff             :     Bennett & Co
Defendant:     Hammond Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Carter v Walker [2010] VSCA 340
May v Thomas [2014] WASCA 176
Watkins v Victoria [2010] VSCA 138

STONE DCJ:

Introduction

In mid-February 2016 the acrimonious relationship between the Heugh family and their neighbours, the Knight family escalated from complaints about the noise from basketball playing late at night and the damage caused by basketballs bouncing over the fence, to mutual accusations of name calling, swearing and parking cars on each other's verge and into threats and physical confrontation.
The first plaintiff, Mrs Tetyana Heugh alleges that she was assaulted by Mr Knight on two separate occasions in the course of Mr Knight's trespassing onto the Heughs' property. She alleges assault and battery by Mr Knight on a subsequent third occasion in the course of Mr Knight's trespassing onto the Heughs' property, which resulted in a bruise on her upper left arm.
The second plaintiff, Mr John Phillip Heugh alleges assault and battery by Mr Knight on that third occasion in the course of Mr Knight's trespassing onto the Heughs' property which resulted in superficial cuts and bruising of his right wrist, left knee, left elbow and the top of his left shoulder. Alternatively, Mr Heugh claims in response to Mr Knight's counterclaim, that if any of his actions towards Mr Knight constituted an actionable assault or battery as a result of which Mr Knight was assaulted or injured, then he was acting in self-defence against Mr Knight.
The defendant, Mr Garry Knight denies Mrs Heugh's allegations of trespass, assault and battery. He also denies Mr Heugh's allegations of trespass, assault and battery. He alleges battery by Mr Heugh resulting in an undisplaced fracture to his right wrist. He contends in his counterclaim for damages for that injury, that if any of his actions towards Mr Heugh constituted an actionable assault or battery as a result of which Mr Heugh was assaulted or injured, then he was acting in self-defence against Mr Heugh.
Mrs Heugh claims damages (including aggravated and exemplary damages) for assault, trespass and battery arising out…

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 Heugh v Knight

Details

AGLC: Heugh v Knight [2017] WADC 84
Case: [2017] WADC 84
Decision Date: 29 JUNE 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Heugh v Knight, the parties involved were Mrs Heugh and Mr Knight, with Mr Heugh also being a party to the counterclaim. The dispute centred around allegations of trespass, assault, battery, self-defence, and claims for damages including aggravated and exemplary damages. The proceedings took place in a court of law, where credibility and factual findings were key issues.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Mr Knight had trespassed on Mrs Heugh’s property, whether he had committed assault and battery, and if his actions were justified under self-defence. Additionally, the court needed to determine the credibility of the parties' testimonies and the applicable legal standards for awarding various types of damages.

The court meticulously examined the evidence and testimonies provided by both sides. It concluded that Mr Knight had not established his counterclaim against Mr Heugh on the balance of probabilities. The court found that Mr Knight's actions did not meet the threshold for self-defence and did not warrant awarding aggravated or exemplary damages. Furthermore, the court found no basis to support Mrs Heugh’s claim against Mr Knight.

In conclusion, the court dismissed Mrs Heugh’s claim against Mr Knight, Mr Heugh’s claim against Mr Knight, and Mr Knight’s counterclaim against Mr Heugh. The decision was based on the court's findings that Mr Knight's actions did not substantiate the claims or counterclaims made by the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Having made the findings referred to in [101] - [115] and [118] ‑ [127], I am not persuaded that Mr Knight has established his counterclaim against Mr Heugh, on the balance of probabilities.Conclusion I dismiss Mrs Heugh's claim against Mr Knight. I dismiss Mr Heugh's claim against Mr Knight. I dismiss Mr Knight's counterclaim against Mr Heugh.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.