MILLER v SOTIROPOULOS [1997] NSWCA 204

MILLER v SOTIROPOULOS [1997] NSWCA 204

The appellant's punch was intentional and excessive in the context of a minor tussle, and the defence of self-defence was not made out because the use of force exceeded what was reasonably necessary; the onus rested on the appellant to prove self-defence, which was not shown on the evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Miller; Respondent: Sotiropoulos
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Trespass to Person, Assault and Battery, Self Defence, Provocation, Onus of Proof
Tort Trespass to Person Assault and Battery Self Defence Provocation Onus of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miller

Appellant

Sotiropoulos

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's punch constituted battery and was excessive force
  2. 2 Whether self-defence was established as a justification for the battery
  3. 3 Whether provocation is a defence to assault

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's punch was intentional and excessive in the context of a minor tussle, and the defence of self-defence was not made out because the use of force exceeded what was reasonably necessary; the onus rested on the appellant to prove self-defence, which was not shown on the evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs