Wong v Wong

Case [2015] NSWDC 274


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wong v Wong [2015] NSWDC 274
Hearing dates:30 June 2015; 1, 29 and 30 July 2015
Date of orders: 30 September 2015
Decision date: 30 September 2015
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff.
(2) Liberty to the parties to bring in short minutes of order reflecting the mathematically agreed judgment sum and interest.
(3) Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs.
(4) Liberty to apply in relation to costs.
(5) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

Catchwords: TORT - assault and battery - plaintiff claims to have been assaulted by his employer's ex-husband while watering her garden - whether assault occurred as described - expert evidence as to the manner of injury - quantum
Cases Cited: Blacktown City Council v Hocking [2008] NSWCA 144
Bradley v Matloob [2015] NSWCA 239
Brown v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Fontin v Katapodis (1962) 108 CLR 177
Hasler v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd (2014) 311 ALR 494
Metaxoulis v McDonalds Australia Ltd [2015] NSWCA 95
New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Reece v Reece (1994) 19 MVR 103
Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117
Vines v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2007] NSWCA 75
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Georges Kam Wong
Defendant: Zak Lung Martin Wong
Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr D Stretton
Defendant: Mr F Austin

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Hunter Flood Lawyers
Defendant: Legal Point Lawyers
File Number(s):2014/188003
Publication restriction:None

Judgment

  1. By statement of claim filed on 25 June 2014, the plaintiff brings proceedings for assault and battery against the defendant for the injuries he suffered arising out of an incident on 21 December 2012 whilst on the premises at 64 Endeavour Street, Seven Hills NSW.

  2. The circumstances giving rise to this claim were as follows. The plaintiff, who was 63 years of age at the time, was watering the garden of a Ms Amy Chui as part of his ongoing duties as a handyman. Ms Chui was the defendant’s ex-wife. While he was watering the front yard, the defendant, aged 47 at the time and the occupant of another house in the same street which was two doors away, came to the property to visit his son. The plaintiff alleges that, without reason, the defendant jump-kicked him to the ground, stomped on his left thigh, breaking it and then delivered further kicks to his body. The defendant alleges the plaintiff abused and assaulted him first, and that the plaintiff suffered the broken leg by catching his foot and falling on a stone wall when he pushed the plaintiff away in self-defence. The plaintiff denies this version of events but said that, even if it were accepted, the push and the circumstances of his broken leg did not occur in the course of self-defence and hence still constituted an assault.

The issues for determination

  1. The issues are as follows:

  1. The resolution of the differing accounts of the incident by the plaintiff and defendant;

  2. The expert…

Continue reading Wong v Wong

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wong v Wong [2015] NSWDC 274
Case
[2015] NSWDC 274
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wong sued Wong, his employer’s ex-husband, for an alleged assault and battery while the plaintiff was engaged in gardening work. The plaintiff claimed that he was attacked by the defendant while watering the garden of the plaintiff’s employer, leading to alleged injuries. The case was heard in a lower court before it was appealed to a higher court, which reviewed the decision and evidence presented.

The court had to determine whether an assault and battery had indeed occurred as described by the plaintiff, and if so, what the extent of the injuries were and the appropriate quantum of damages. This involved evaluating expert evidence regarding the nature and cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court needed to consider the credibility of the plaintiff's account and the defendant's denial of the allegations.

The court found that the plaintiff had indeed been assaulted by the defendant, as evidenced by the medical and expert reports presented. The injuries sustained were deemed significant enough to warrant a judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs. The specific amount of damages and interest was to be determined by the parties and recorded in short minutes of order. Finally, the court granted liberty to apply in relation to costs and directed that the exhibits be retained for 28 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff.

(2) Liberty to the parties to bring in short minutes of order reflecting the mathematically agreed judgment sum and interest.

(3) Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs.

(4) Liberty to apply in relation to costs.

(5) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

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.