Morris v Karunaratne [2009] NSWDC 346

Morris v Karunaratne [2009] NSWDC 346

The tort of deceit is not generally available between parties to a marriage, and no sufficient factual basis was established. However, intentional acts by the first defendant constituting battery were found proved on several occasions, entitling the plaintiff to damages for violation of dignitary interest, general damages, aggravated damages, and associated costs. Claims against the parents failed for lack of factual basis.

Parties
Plaintiff: Sarah Jane Morris; First Defendant: Nishantha Saman Karunaratne; Second Defendant: Stanley Gilbert Karunaratne; Third Defendant: Freda Irene De Livera Karunaratne
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $197,500. Judgment for the second and third defendants against the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Deceit, Assault and Battery, Statute of Limitations, Damages, Causation, Loss of Earning Capacity
Tort Law Deceit Assault and Battery Statute of Limitations Damages Causation Loss of Earning Capacity

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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Jane Morris

Plaintiff

Nishantha Saman Karunaratne

First Defendant

Stanley Gilbert Karunaratne

Second Defendant

Freda Irene De Livera Karunaratne

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tort of deceit is available between parties to a marriage
  2. 2 Whether assaults and batteries were committed by the first defendant against the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the limitation period is suspended by reason of plaintiff's disability due to mental impairment

Ratio Decidendi

The tort of deceit is not generally available between parties to a marriage, and no sufficient factual basis was established. However, intentional acts by the first defendant constituting battery were found proved on several occasions, entitling the plaintiff to damages for violation of dignitary interest, general damages, aggravated damages, and associated costs. Claims against the parents failed for lack of factual basis.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $197,500. Judgment for the second and third defendants against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $197,500.00
  • Judgment for the second and third defendants against the plaintiff