Schmidt v Argent

[2003] QCA 507

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Schmidt v Argent & Ors [2003] QCA 507
PARTIES:	HELENA MAREE SCHMIDT (plaintiff/respondent) v JAMES ARGENT (first defendant/first appellant) MEGAN FAULKS (second defendant) KELLY TURNBULL (third defendant/second appellant) STATE OF QUEENSLAND (fourth defendant/third appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 11541 of 2002 DC No 9 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	14 November 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 August 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Dutney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	POLICE –ACTIONS FOR WRONGFUL ARREST, TRESPASS AND OTHER WRONGS – LIABILITY OF CROWN OR OTHER EMPLOYER – where respondent arrested on warrants for non-payment of traffic fines – where claims made for false imprisonment, negligence and assault – whether arrest was unlawful in circumstances where the respondent was not shown nor read any warrant – where no demand for payment of the full amount of the current debt was made as required by the warrant – whether respondent’s continued detention at the Ipswich and Brisbane watchhouses was unlawful – where respondent suffered psychiatric injuries    JURY – THE JURY IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – IN GENERAL – VERDICTS AND FINDINGS – OTHER CASES – whether outcome open to a reasonable jury, properly directed and confining itself to relevant considerations DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE AND AGGRAVATED DAMAGES – whether respondent entitled to aggravated damages – whether the conduct of the defendants was improper, lacking in bona fides or unjustifiable DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE AND AGGRAVATED DAMAGES – whether the respondent entitled to exemplary damages – whether conduct of the defendants displayed contumelious disregard for the plaintiff’s rights Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 69B Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 1997 (Qld), s 56(1) Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulations 1998 (Qld), Div 2 of Sch 2 Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 10.5 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 255 Borland v Makauskas [2000] QCA 521; Appeal No 6935 of 2000, 22 December 2000, followed Calin v Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd (1991) 173 CLR 33, followed Pujick v Savic, Cox and Cudgewa Dairy Co Ltd [1971] VR 632, cited R v Purdy [1975] QB 288, discussed Spautz v Butterworth (1996) 41 NSWLR 1, cited XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448 Theiss v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (No 5) [1994] 1 Qd R 156, cited Zalewski v Turcarolo [1995] 2 VR 562, cited
COUNSEL:	R V Hanson QC, with P B Rashleigh, for the appellants R D Peterson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the appellants Bushnells Lawyers for the respondent

1. McMURDO P: I agree with Dutney J that the appeal should be dismissed with costs for the reasons he gives.

1. WILLIAMS JA: I agree.

1. DUTNEY J: On 3^rd December, 2002 following a…