Ray v Southon [2022] NSWCA 267

Ray v Southon [2022] NSWCA 267

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to reject the disputed relationship evidence as irrelevant to self-defence; the unchallenged factual findings and preference for the respondent's evidence meant that self-defence was not reasonably or rationally supported; Dr Sheehan's qualifications and the lay evidence were sufficient to support reliance on his opinion about domestic assistance; the trial judge gave adequate reasons for the domestic assistance awards; and the finding that the appellant intended to injure or cause harm to the respondent when he pushed her was not shown to be wrong, so s 3B(1)(a) excluded the operation of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal in Tort Concerning Assault, Self Defence and Damages / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales Decision in Southon V Ray [2022] NSWDC 32
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['assault During Domestic Relationship' 'self Defence in Civil Proceedings' 'relevance of Relationship Evidence' 'expert Evidence on Domestic Assistance' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'intentional Act With Intent to Cause Injury Under Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw), S 3 B']
['torts' 'damages' 'evidence' 'civil Liability'] ['assault During Domestic Relationship' 'self Defence in Civil Proceedings' 'relevance of Relationship Evidence' 'expert Evidence on Domestic Assistance' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'intentional Act With Intent to Cause Injury Under Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw), S 3 B']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal in Tort Concerning Assault, Self Defence and Damages / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales Decision in Southon V Ray [2022] NSWDC 32

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the appellant's evidence concerning his relationship with the respondent as irrelevant to self-defence." 'Whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the appellant did not act in self-defence at common law or within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).' "Whether the trial judge erred in admitting Dr T Sheehan's report in full despite a challenge to his expertise on domestic assistance." 'Whether the trial judge failed to give sufficient reasons for findings on past and future domestic assistance.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in awarding damages for past and future domestic assistance.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant intended to injure the respondent so that the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) did not apply.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to reject the disputed relationship evidence as irrelevant to self-defence; the unchallenged factual findings and preference for the respondent's evidence meant that self-defence was not reasonably or rationally supported; Dr Sheehan's qualifications and the lay evidence were sufficient to support reliance on his opinion about domestic assistance; the trial judge gave adequate reasons for the domestic assistance awards; and the finding that the appellant intended to injure or cause harm to the respondent when he pushed her was not shown to be wrong, so s 3B(1)(a) excluded the operation of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']