Legal Research
Cases
Lewis v Doyle

Lewis v Doyle

Case [2022] NSWSC 92 18 February 2022

Trespass to the Person

Assault

Sexual Assault

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Causation

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Lewis v Doyle [2022] NSWSC 92
Hearing dates: 18-22 October 2021
Date of orders: 18 February 2022
Decision date: 18 February 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,353,850.00

Catchwords:
TORTS – trespass to the person – assault – sexual assault – where Plaintiff aged between 14 and 15 sexually assaulted on number of occasions by employer in 1980s – plaintiff seeking compensatory and aggravated damages – psychiatric and psychological harm to plaintiff – substance addiction – causation – whether other factors contributed to plaintiff’s injuries – where sexual assaults caused lifelong injury to plaintiff principally from wrongdoing of defendant
TORTS – trespass to the person – assault – sexual assault – where defendant has been convicted of criminal offences against the plaintiff – use to be made of previous convictions – s 91 Evidence Act

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 3B
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 91, 178

Cases Cited:
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Josifouski v Velovski [2013] NSWSC 1103
Malec v Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638
Miles v Doyle (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1312
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170; 110 ALR 449; [1992] HCA 66
New South Wales v Ibbett (2006) 229 CLR 638; [2006] HCA 57
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Darren John Lewis (Plaintiff)
Philip William Doyle (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Andrews & R Brown (Plaintiff)
T Hall (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Carroll & O’Dea (Plaintiff)
Hall Partners (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/200890
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The plaintiff brings proceedings claiming damages from the defendant as a result of injuries he sustained from a number of sexual assaults said to have been perpetrated upon the plaintiff by the defendant in 1986 and 1987.
Section 3B(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) provides that the provisions of that Act do not apply in respect of civil liability from an intentional act that is sexual assault or other sexual misconduct committed by the person, with certain exceptions that are irrelevant to the present claim.
The plaintiff claims damages comprising general damages, out of pocket expenses, economic loss, and aggravated damages.
The plaintiff particularises in paragraph 7 of the amended statement of claim seven occasions when he claims he was sexually assaulted by the defendant.
In answer to that paragraph of the amended statement of claim, the defendant pleads as follows:

5. In answer to paragraph 7 of the Claim, the defendant:
a. Admits that he was convicted by a jury of the said charges on 24 August 2012, but denies the particularised facts as are pleaded and denies the allegations.

The particulars alleged by the plaintiff are as follows:

i. In and/or about August 1986…

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 Lewis v Doyle

Details

AGLC: Lewis v Doyle [2022] NSWSC 92
Case: [2022] NSWSC 92
Decision Date: 18 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lewis v Doyle, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, his employer in the 1980s, had sexually assaulted him on several occasions when he was between the ages of 14 and 15. The plaintiff sought compensatory and aggravated damages for the psychiatric and psychological harm suffered as a result of these assaults, which he claimed led to substance addiction. The defendant, however, argued that other factors had contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries, and thus, his actions were not the sole cause of the plaintiff’s lifelong injuries.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the sexual assaults committed by the defendant were the primary cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, despite other contributing factors. Additionally, the court had to consider the admissibility of the defendant’s previous convictions for similar offences against the plaintiff, under section 91 of the Evidence Act. The court had to balance the relevance of the defendant’s past convictions to prove the pattern of conduct and propensity against the prejudicial effect these admissions might have on the trial.

The court found that the sexual assaults by the defendant were indeed the principal cause of the plaintiff’s lifelong injury. Despite the presence of other contributing factors, the court concluded that the defendant's actions were the predominant cause of the plaintiff's harm. The court also ruled that the defendant's previous convictions for similar offences against the plaintiff were admissible under section 91 of the Evidence Act, as their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff both compensatory and aggravated damages, acknowledging the severe and lasting impact of the defendant’s actions.

Orders