Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ray v Southon [2022] NSWCA 267 Hearing dates: 7 November 2022 Date of orders: 16 December 2022 Decision date: 16 December 2022 Before: Ward P at [1]
Griffiths AJA at [2]
Harrison J at [3]Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs
Catchwords: TORTS – assault during domestic relationship – where appellant pushed respondent – where respondent fell and struck her head on a coffee table – where appellant claims to have acted in self-defence – whether trial judge erred in rejecting appellant’s evidence concerning his relationship with respondent as irrelevant to the issue of self-defence – whether trial judge erred in concluding that appellant did not act in self-defence – whether trial judge erred in finding appellant had “intent to cause injury” and that Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B(1) did not apply
DAMAGES – assessment – past and future domestic assistance – whether medical practitioner qualified by respondent lacked expertise to express opinions on her need for domestic assistance – whether trial judge erred by failing to give sufficient reasons for award of damages
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 135
Cases Cited: Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis [2013] NSWCA 443
Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport & Recreation Club Inc (2020) 103 NSWLR 658; [2020] NSWCA 294
R v Anderson (2000) 111 A Crim R 19; [2000] VSCA 16
R v Castaneda [2015] NSWSC 964
R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
R v Toki (No 3) (2000) 116 A Crim R 536; [2000] NSWSC 999
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christopher Ray (Appellant)
Sharon Southon (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M J Davis (Appellant)
R de Meyrick (Respondent)
Fern Lawyers (Appellant)
CBD Law Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/83330 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 24 February 2022
- Before:
- Abadee DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2020/189352
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The appellant and the respondent lived in a de facto relationship for about 17 years until August 2017. At the date of the incident, the respondent was 52 and the appellant was 33. The respondent alleged that on the 17th of that month she was assaulted by the appellant in their home at Kariong when he grabbed and shook her and pushed her, causing her to fall back and strike her head on a coffee table.
The appellant was interviewed at Mudgee Police Station the following morning. He said that on the morning in question he had packed his bags and was ready to leave for three nights. The…
Continue reading Ray v Southon
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ray v Southon [2022] NSWCA 267
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 267
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in: (1) rejecting evidence concerning the nature of the parties' relationship as irrelevant to the issue of self-defence; (2) concluding that Mr. Ray did not act in self-defence; (3) finding that Mr. Ray had the "intent to cause injury" such that section 3B(1) of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW) did not apply; and (4) failing to provide sufficient reasons for the award of damages, particularly concerning the need for past and future domestic assistance, and whether a medical practitioner's opinion on this need was admissible.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasoning. It held that the nature of the domestic relationship was not irrelevant to self-defence, but that the trial judge had properly considered it and ultimately found it did not support the claim of self-defence. The court affirmed the trial judge's conclusion that Mr. Ray had not acted in self-defence, noting that the evidence did not establish a reasonable apprehension of harm or a reasonable response. Furthermore, the court agreed that Mr. Ray's actions demonstrated an intent to cause injury, thus precluding the application of section 3B(1) of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). Regarding damages, the court found the medical practitioner's evidence was properly admitted and that the trial judge had provided adequate reasons for the award of domestic assistance.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs
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.