WAQ v Di Pino

The appellant, WAQ, brought an appeal against a decision by the District Court of Queensland, presided over by Di Pino J. The initial proceedings involved a claim of trespass to the person in the form of sexual assault, which resulted in the trial judge ordering the respondent to pay damages to the appellant. The appellant contested the trial judge's findings that they did not suffer a psychiatric injury in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the respondent's actions, and that the trial judge did not order the respondent to pay aggravating and exemplary damages. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which had to determine whether the trial judge's findings were correct and whether there was an error in the assessment of damages.

The court had to address two primary issues: whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the appellant did not suffer from PTSD and whether the trial judge erred in not ordering the respondent to pay aggravating and exemplary damages. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly assess the evidence regarding the psychiatric injury and did not consider the appropriate principles in awarding damages. The respondent contended that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and that there was no basis for awarding aggravating and exemplary damages.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the appellant did not suffer from PTSD. The court examined the evidence presented and found that the trial judge's conclusion was supported by the evidence and the applicable legal principles. Additionally, the court held that the trial judge did not err in not ordering the respondent to pay aggravating and exemplary damages. The court found that the trial judge had considered the appropriate principles and that there was no basis for such an award in this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial judge. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the standard basis. The court granted leave to amend the notice of appeal, ensuring that the appeal was heard on its merits. The outcome of the case reinforced the importance of properly assessing evidence and applying legal principles in determining the appropriate award of damages in cases of trespass to the person.