SAB v PMC - [2013] WADC 1

JURISDICTION

DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION

: GERALDTON

CITATION

:	SAB -v- PMC [2013] WADC 1

CORAM

: GOETZE DCJ

HEARD

:	29-31 OCTOBER, 1-2 NOVEMBER & 3 DECEMBER 2012

DELIVERED

:	17 JANUARY 2013

FILE NO/S

:	GER CIV 5 of 2010

BETWEEN

: SAB

Plaintiff
AND
PMC
Defendant

Catchwords:

Claim for damages for assault and battery - Assessment of damages - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002

Evidence Act 1906

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $86,165.40

[2013] WADC 1

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr A A Nolan
Defendant	:	Mr D L Armstrong

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Trewin Norman & Co
Defendant	:	Altorfer & Stow

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

AM v KB [2007] VSC 429
Bennett v Minister for Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408
BGC Residential Pty Ltd v Fairwater Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 268
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1

[2013] WADC 1

GOETZE DCJ

GOETZE DCJ:

Introduction

1 The plaintiff, SAB, has pleaded that on 10 May 2007 in the course of
her employment with a government utility in regional Western Australia, she suffered an assault and battery from one of her immediate supervisors, PMC.

The alleged assault and battery is of a sexual nature.

3 SAB has also pleaded that as a consequence of the alleged assault
and battery, she suffered from some immediate short term bodily pain and a longer term psychiatric illness, the latter of which has affected her day-to-day living and employment and will continue to do so into the future. She claims to have suffered loss and damage.

The claim is brought at common law.

5 The Civil Liability Act 2002 does not apply by reason that the alleged assault and battery was either or both an unlawful intentional act done with an intention to cause personal injury and it is an intentional act the doing of which is a sexual offence as defined in the Evidence Act 1906, s 36A or sexual conduct that is otherwise unlawful: Civil Liability Act s 3A, Table 1, Items 1(a) and (b).

SAB did not make any claim for workers' compensation and so the legislation applicable to such claims has no application in this matter.
PMC has denied any sexual contact with SAB.

8 This action therefore requires determination of whether SAB has

proved that the alleged assault and battery occurred. If so, then an
assessment of her injuries, loss and damage is required.

The standard of proof

9 This is a civil claim for damages. SAB must therefore prove that it is
more likely than not that the alleged sexual assault and battery occurred. It is a serious allegation. Therefore, regard must be…

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 SAB v PMC

Details

AGLC: SAB v PMC [2013] WADC 1
Case: [2013] WADC 1
Decision Date: 17 JANUARY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SAB v PMC, the plaintiff sought damages for assault and battery arising from an incident that occurred between the parties. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, who was a security guard, alleged that the defendant assaulted him while performing his duties, resulting in physical injuries and emotional distress. The defendant, on the other hand, denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the plaintiff's injuries were unrelated to the alleged incident.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate assessment of damages for the plaintiff's claims of assault and battery. The court had to consider the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, the impact on his physical and emotional well-being, and any other relevant factors that may have influenced the damages awarded. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the defendant's actions constituted an assault and battery under the law.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the plaintiff had established the defendant's liability for the assault and battery. The court acknowledged the severity of the plaintiff's injuries and the impact on his life, taking into account medical reports, witness testimonies, and the overall circumstances of the incident. The court also considered the defendant's denial of responsibility and the lack of credible evidence to support his claims.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the assault and battery, considering the physical and emotional harm suffered. The exact amount of damages was determined based on the specific facts of the case, including the severity of the injuries, the impact on the plaintiff's life, and any other relevant factors. The court emphasised that the assessment of damages was to be tailored to the unique circumstances of this case.

Orders