14 – 18 February 2022; 21 – 24 February 2022; 20 – 24 June 2022; 30 June 2022 (directions); 1 August 2022 – 2 August 2022; 12 September 2022 (written submissions - plaintiff); 26 October 2022 (written submissions - defendant); 8 November 2022 (written submissions – plaintiff in reply); 8 December 2022 (oral submissions)
Date of orders:
21 February 2023
Decision date:
21 February 2023
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Before:
Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the Statement of Claim proceedings.
(2) Judgment for the plaintiff/cross-defendant against the defendant/cross-claimant in the Cross-Claim proceedings.
(3) The Cross-claim proceedings are dismissed against the plaintiff.
(4) The parties are to bring in agreed short minutes of orders reflecting these reasons within 14 days.
(5) The question of costs of the Statement of Claim proceedings and the Cross-claim proceedings are reserved.
Catchwords:
TORTS – battery – allegations of intentional battery by both plaintiff and defendant – whether throwing a glass of wine over a person constitutes a battery – whether intentional or negligent battery – self-defence – assault
EVIDENCE – standard of proof – need for persuasive evidence in relation to allegations of intentional battery with intent to cause injury – whether Court persuaded of either case of plaintiff or defendant on the evidence
[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 McCabe v Riechelmann
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
McCabe v Riechelmann [2023] NSWDC 44
Case
[2023] NSWDC 44
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
McCabe v Riechelmann was a dispute heard in the Local Court of New South Wales, which involved allegations of battery between the plaintiff, McCabe, and the defendant, Riechelmann. Both parties claimed to have been the victims of battery, with McCabe asserting that Riechelmann threw a glass of wine over him, and Riechelmann alleging that McCabe had thrown a glass of wine over her. The court had to determine whether throwing a glass of wine over someone constituted a battery and whether the act was intentional or negligent. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant's actions were justified under self-defence and if the plaintiff had committed an assault that could warrant such a defence.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the tort of battery, specifically whether the act of throwing a glass of wine over someone constituted an intentional or negligent act. The court had to assess the standard of proof required to establish the plaintiff's case of intentional battery with intent to cause injury. The court also needed to determine whether it was persuaded by either party's case based on the evidence presented. In considering self-defence, the court had to assess whether the defendant's actions were reasonable in response to the plaintiff's alleged assault.
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was persuasive in establishing that the defendant threw a glass of wine over him, constituting an intentional act of battery. The court was not persuaded by the defendant's evidence that the plaintiff had assaulted her, which would have justified her actions under self-defence. The court concluded that the plaintiff had successfully established his case of intentional battery, while the defendant's cross-claim was dismissed. The court ordered judgment in favour of the plaintiff in both the Statement of Claim and Cross-Claim proceedings, with the Cross-claim proceedings dismissed against the plaintiff. The court reserved the question of costs for a later date.
The orders made by the court included a judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the Statement of Claim proceedings, a judgment for the plaintiff/cross-defendant against the defendant/cross-claimant in the Cross-Claim proceedings, and the dismissal of the Cross-claim proceedings against the plaintiff. The parties were directed to bring in agreed short minutes of orders reflecting these reasons within 14 days. The court reserved the question of costs of the Statement of Claim proceedings and the Cross-claim proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the Statement of Claim proceedings.
(2) Judgment for the plaintiff/cross-defendant against the defendant/cross-claimant in the Cross-Claim proceedings.
(3) The Cross-claim proceedings are dismissed against the plaintiff.
(4) The parties are to bring in agreed short minutes of orders reflecting these reasons within 14 days.
(5) The question of costs of the Statement of Claim proceedings and the Cross-claim proceedings are reserved.