Poole v Piggott - [2000] QDC 254

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Poole v. Piggott [2000] QDC 254

PARTIES: KELLIE ANNE POOLE
(Plaintiff)
And
JASON PIGGOTT
(Defendant)

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

ORIGINATING COURT: District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 5^th September 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 23 - 25 August 2000.

JUDGE: Judge Forde

ORDER: Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $17,056.00
Defendant to pay plaintiffs costs on Magistrates Court scale.

CATCHWORDS:
Trespass to the person - self-defence - compensatory or aggravated damages - mitigating circumstances - 27 year old female - minor head injuries.

Criminal Code s.273
Criminal Code Act 1899 s.6
Lane v. Holloway (1968) 1 QB 379, C.A
Fontin v. Katopidis (1962) 108 CLR 177
Uren v. John Fairfax Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118
Battiato v. Lagana [1992] 2 QdR 234
Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439
Goss v. Nicholas [1960] Tas SR 133
Saler v. Klingbiel [1945] SASR 171
Pearce v. Hallett [1969] SASR 423
White v. Connolly [1927] StR Qd 75
McLelland v. Symons (1951) CLR 157
Lamb v. Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1
Jervis Sulphate (NT) Ltd v. Petro Cash Corporations (1974) 5 ALR 33.

COUNSEL: Mr D.L.K. Atkinson for the Plaintiff
Mr M. Eastwood for the Defendant

SOLICITORS: Forde Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Short Punch and Greatorix for the Defendant

Introduction

The plaintiff in this action is Kellie Anne Poole. She sues the defendant, Jason Piggott, for damages for trespass to a person as a result of an incident on 12 December 1998 at the Caboolture Showgrounds, Queensland.

The action is one of an intentional trespass to the person. In that event, the plaintiff may recover damages not only for her personal injuries, but also for the injury to her proper feeling of dignity and pride. It seems to be common ground that the defendant did not know the plaintiff prior to the events on this evening. There are two separate incidents pleaded in the pleadings.

The defence has two aspects to it. Firstly, the defendant says that he went to the assistance of a third party, one Jerry Wayne Hart, who had been assaulted and battered by persons the defendant is unable to identify and that he was struck in so doing. The defendant says he moved in to assist Mr Hart to prevent him from being further assaulted and battered. There is a denial that the defendant touched any part of the plaintiff's body intentionally. Secondly, the defendant says that he went to the assistance of his sister Janelle Piggott who was being assaulted and battered by the plaintiff and endeavoured to assist her from being further battered by the plaintiff. During this particular fracas, the defendant was assaulted by a person or persons unknown and said that any touching of the plaintiff would have been unintentional. The defendant further asserts that any force that was used was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The question of identity of the defendant being the person who allegedly assaulted the plaintiff was an…

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 Poole v Piggott

Details

AGLC: Poole v Piggott [2000] QDC 254
Case: [2000] QDC 254
Decision Date: 5th September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Poole v Piggott is a case involving a trespass to the person, where the plaintiff, Poole, was seeking damages for injuries sustained during an altercation with the defendant, Piggott. The dispute centred on whether Piggott's actions constituted self-defence, and if so, what amount of damages should be awarded to Poole. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether Piggott's use of force against Poole was reasonable and justified as self-defence, and if Poole's injuries warranted compensatory or aggravated damages. The court needed to examine the circumstances leading up to the altercation, the nature of the injuries sustained, and the principles of self-defence as set out in relevant statutes and case law. This included assessing whether Poole's actions could be considered provocative, and if Piggott's response was proportionate.

The court examined the principles of self-defence, considering the authority provided by the Criminal Code and previous case law such as Fontin v. Katopidis, Uren v. John Fairfax Sons Pty Ltd, and others. The court found that Piggott's actions did not constitute a reasonable response to Poole's provocation and that Poole's injuries, while minor, warranted compensatory damages. The court awarded damages considering the mitigating circumstances and the defendant's lack of prior convictions. The final judgment awarded Poole $17,056.00 in damages, with Piggott ordered to pay Poole's costs on the Magistrates Court scale.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $17,056.00

Defendant to pay plaintiffs costs on Magistrates Court scale.

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.

CITATION:	Poole v. Piggott [2000] QDC 254
PARTIES:	KELLIE ANNE POOLE (Plaintiff) And JASON PIGGOTT (Defendant)
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5^th September 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 - 25 August 2000.
JUDGE:	Judge Forde
ORDER:	Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $17,056.00 Defendant to pay plaintiffs costs on Magistrates Court scale.
CATCHWORDS:	Trespass to the person - self-defence - compensatory or aggravated damages - mitigating circumstances - 27 year old female - minor head injuries. Criminal Code s.273 Criminal Code Act 1899 s.6 Lane v. Holloway (1968) 1 QB 379, C.A Fontin v. Katopidis (1962) 108 CLR 177 Uren v. John Fairfax Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 Battiato v. Lagana [1992] 2 QdR 234 Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439 Goss v. Nicholas [1960] Tas SR 133 Saler v. Klingbiel [1945] SASR 171 Pearce v. Hallett [1969] SASR 423 White v. Connolly [1927] StR Qd 75 McLelland v. Symons (1951) CLR 157 Lamb v. Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1 Jervis Sulphate (NT) Ltd v. Petro Cash Corporations (1974) 5 ALR 33.
COUNSEL:	Mr D.L.K. Atkinson for the Plaintiff Mr M. Eastwood for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Forde Lawyers for the Plaintiff Short Punch and Greatorix for the Defendant