Houda v New South Wales - [2005] NSWSC 1053

Reported Decision:
(2005) Aust Torts Reports 81-816

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:
Houda v The State of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 1053

HEARING DATE(S): 12/09/05 - 6/10/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

25 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Cooper AJ at 1

DECISION:
1. Judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant on each of the causes of action pleaded.; 2. I assess damages in the total amount of $145.000.00; 3. I invite submissions on the questions of interest and costs.

CATCHWORDS:
Malicious prosecution - Wrongful arrest - False imprisonment - Aggravated damages - Exemplary damages - Intentional act that is done with intent to cause injury (s3B(1)(a) Civil Liability Act 2002) - "Injury" (in that section) - Accrual of cause of action (Limitation Act)

LEGISLATION CITED:
Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983
Crimes Act 1900
Limitation Act 1969
Civil Liability Act 2002

CASES CITED:
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 366
Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517
Emad Trolley v Shigar (2003) 57 NSWLR 636
McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League Football Club 2005 NSWSC 107
McDonald v Coles Myer Limited 1995 Australian Torts Report 81-361
Little v Law Institute of Victoria [1990] VR 247
Savile v Roberts [1698] 1Ld. Raym.374
Amin v Bannerjee 1947 AC 322
Cassell and Co Limited v Broome & Anor (1972) AC 1027
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd 117 CLR 115
Praed v Graham (1889) 24 QBD 53
XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 471

PARTIES:
Adam Houda v The State of New South Wales

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 20217/03

COUNSEL:
Plaintiff: Mr M. Neil QC/ Mr M. Gollan
Defendant: Mr P. Bodor QC/ Mr P. Saidi

SOLICITORS:
Plaintiff: Gilbert & Tobin Lawyers
Defendant: Crown Solicitor's Office

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ACTING JUSTICE COOPER

Tuesday 25 October 2005

20217 of 2003

ADAM HOUDA v THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION

1 COOPER AJ: By his Statement of Claim filed on 7 August 2003 the plaintiff sued three police officers plus the State of New South Wales alleging malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, wrongful arrest and assault and claimed general compensatory damages, special damages, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, costs and interest.

2 On 4 March 2004 an order was made by consent that the proceedings against the first, second and third defendants (the named police officers) be dismissed pursuant to section 9D of the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 as amended.

3 The events giving rise to this action took place at about 10:30 on the morning of Friday 25 August 2000 in the vestibule adjacent to the court rooms on the first level of the Burwood Local Court.

4 The plaintiff, dressed in a suit with collar and tie, was there in his capacity as a solicitor and was awaiting the arrival of two clients. Constable Lance Stebbing, dressed in police uniform, whose actions form the basis of the plaintiff’s claim was also present…

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 Houda v New South Wales 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: [2005] NSWSC 1053
Decision Date: 25 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Houda v New South Wales, the plaintiff, Houda, sought damages for malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment against the State of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that he was wrongfully arrested and detained by police officers for an offence he did not commit. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed damages under the Civil Liability Act 2002, including aggravated and exemplary damages, and sought to recover for the harm caused by the intentional act of the police officers, which was done with the intent to cause injury.

The court was required to determine whether the police officers' actions constituted a malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the plaintiff's claim for aggravated and exemplary damages was valid, and whether the "injury" requirement under section 3B(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 was met. The court also needed to consider the accrual of the cause of action in light of the Limitation Act.

The court found that the police officers' actions did constitute malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment. The court held that the officers acted with the intent to cause injury, satisfying the requirements of section 3B(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002. The court also determined that the accrual of the cause of action occurred when the plaintiff was released from detention, not when he became aware of the wrongful arrest. The court awarded the plaintiff aggravated and exemplary damages for the harm suffered due to the malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment.

Orders