Lechowski v Anstee [2022] NSWDC 81

Lechowski v Anstee [2022] NSWDC 81

The plaintiff failed to prove the factual foundation of her intentional tort claims: the Court rejected her evidence, accepted the defence witnesses and objective recording, and found that DS James did not arrest, assault, detain, stalk or intimidate her and that DCI Cadden expressly told her she was not under arrest. The negligence claims against the Rugby Union Defendants also failed because the plaintiff did not prove actionable damage or causation, including any evidence of early onset menopause or recognised psychiatric injury, and the rugby officials acted reasonably in treating the incident as a police matter. Judgment and verdict were therefore entered for all defendants with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Damages Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment and verdict for each of the defendants; plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Arrest' 'false Imprisonment' 'assault and Battery' 'stalking and Intimidation Allegations' 'causation' 'actionable Damage' 'credibility and Fact Finding' 'costs']
['torts' 'negligence' 'intentional Torts' 'civil Procedure'] ['unlawful Arrest' 'false Imprisonment' 'assault and Battery' 'stalking and Intimidation Allegations' 'causation' 'actionable Damage' 'credibility and Fact Finding' 'costs']

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 Tort Damages Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was assaulted, battered, falsely imprisoned, wrongfully arrested, stalked or intimidated by police officers.' 'Whether the Rugby Union Defendants breached any duty of care owed to the plaintiff and caused actionable harm.' 'Whether the plaintiff proved actual injury or actionable damage, including early onset menopause or a recognised psychiatric illness.' "Whether the plaintiff's evidence should be accepted on the balance of probabilities." "Whether damages would have been payable if the brief pinching of the plaintiff's sleeve amounted to battery."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove the factual foundation of her intentional tort claims: the Court rejected her evidence, accepted the defence witnesses and objective recording, and found that DS James did not arrest, assault, detain, stalk or intimidate her and that DCI Cadden expressly told her she was not under arrest. The negligence claims against the Rugby Union Defendants also failed because the plaintiff did not prove actionable damage or causation, including any evidence of early onset menopause or recognised psychiatric injury, and the rugby officials acted reasonably in treating the incident as a police matter. Judgment and verdict were therefore entered for all defendants with costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment and verdict for each of the defendants; plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment and verdict for each of the defendants.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs." 'If any party seeks a variation of order (2), that party must file and serve written submissions of no more than 5 pages together with any affidavit within 14 days of these orders.' 'Any party opposing any variation...