Lt v RT

Case [2013] NSWDC 251


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: LT v RT [2013] NSWDC 251
Hearing dates:24 September 2013
Decision date: 10 October 2013
Before: MJ Finnane QC DCJ
Decision:

See paragraphs [29] [30]

Catchwords: CIVIL - tort - intentional - trespass to person - deliberate acts - intentional or wilful - assault - battery - sexual assault - aggravating factors
Damages - jurisdictional limit - assessment
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Gray v The Motor Accidents Commission (1998-1999) 196 CLR 1
Richards v Conrford (2010) 76 NSWLR 573
Haddaway v Robinson & Ors [2010] NSWDC 188
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: LT (Plaintiff)
RT (Defendant)
Representation: Mr K Andrews (Plaintiff)
No appearance (Defendant)
Wyatt Lawyers & Advisors (Plaintiff)
No appearance (Defendant)
File Number(s):2013/178281

Judgment

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff claims damages from the defendant who is her father arising from his committing serious sexual assaults against her from the time she was four or five years old until the time she was 13 years old. He has admitted his guilt to a series of charges preferred against him and is now in gaol following a sentence of imprisonment passed upon him earlier this year by another Judge of the District Court of New South Wales.

  1. The plaintiff is an attractive, though fragile and distressed woman of 54 years. The Statement of Claim rolls up all the sexual assaults in a single cause of action which is particularised. This, as a matter of pleading, is clearly wrong since each individual assault was a separate tort and in respect of each one there is a separate cause of action. However, that will not have any effect on the outcome of the proceedings. I attach a schedule of the various offences committed on the plaintiff by the defendant. All are serious offences. Carnal knowledge of a child under the age of 10 years rendered the perpetrator liable to a sentence of life imprisonment. The offender could also have been charged with rape, which also carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

  1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a number of charges, including carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 10 years, when he was brought before the District Court for sentence and has failed to file any defence in the current civil proceedings. As a result, there judgment was entered against him and I am required to assess damages.

  1. The plaintiff seeks general damages as compensation for the wrong she suffered and aggravated general damages because of the nature of the sexual assaults. She does not seek exemplary damages because the defendant is serving a term of imprisonment and exemplary damages cannot be awarded to her (See Gray v the Motor Accident Commission (1998-1999 196 CLR 1.)

Facts

  1. The plaintiff was the victim of most appalling sexual assaults from the time she was four years old until she was nearly 14 years old. The assailant was her natural father.

  1. Each sexual assault and each accompanying physical assault could have been…

Continue reading Lt v RT

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
LT v RT [2013] NSWDC 251
Case
[2013] NSWDC 251
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lt versus RT, the court addressed a case involving allegations of intentional trespass to person, assault, battery, and sexual assault. The plaintiff, Lt, brought the action against RT, the defendant, asserting that RT had committed a series of deliberate acts that constituted assault and battery, including sexual assault. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining the nature of the acts, the existence of intent, and the appropriate assessment of damages, given the jurisdictional limit.

The legal issues central to the case required the court to examine whether the defendant's actions were indeed intentional and deliberate, and if so, whether they amounted to assault, battery, and sexual assault. Additionally, the court had to consider the aggravating factors that might apply in assessing the damages. The determination of whether the acts were intentional or wilful was crucial, as it would influence both the classification of the offence and the quantum of damages awarded. The court needed to carefully weigh the evidence presented to ascertain the precise nature and extent of the harm caused.

The court found that RT's actions were indeed intentional and deliberate, satisfying the criteria for assault, battery, and sexual assault. The court detailed the specific acts that constituted these offences, highlighting the deliberate nature of the defendant's conduct. In assessing the damages, the court considered the jurisdictional limits and applied the relevant legal principles to ensure a fair and just outcome. The court awarded damages that reflected the severity of the offences and the harm suffered by the plaintiff, within the permissible jurisdictional boundaries.

The final orders, as specified in paragraphs [29] and [30], were for the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages for the intentional acts of assault, battery, and sexual assault. The court's decision provided clarity on the nature of the offences and the appropriate compensation for the harm caused.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [29] [30]

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.