Pelling v Johnson [2004] EWHC 492 (QB) (16 March 2004)
The defendant intentionally made physical contact with the claimant by taking hold of him, which constituted assault. There was no evidence of bad faith or recklessness sufficient to establish misfeasance in public office. The conduct did not amount to a breach of Article 8 ECHR. Damages for assault were assessed at £50, with no aggravated or exemplary damages warranted.
- Citation
- [2004] EWHC 492
- Parties
- Claimant: Michael John Pelling; Defendant: Philip Johnson
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 16 March 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Tort Claim / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Claimant succeeds in assault; other claims dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Assault, Misfeasance in Public Office, Article 8 ECHR, Damages
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael John Pelling
Claimant
Philip Johnson
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Claim / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant committed assault against the claimant
- 2 Whether the defendant committed misfeasance in public office
- 3 Whether the defendant breached the claimant's rights under Article 8 ECHR
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant intentionally made physical contact with the claimant by taking hold of him, which constituted assault. There was no evidence of bad faith or recklessness sufficient to establish misfeasance in public office. The conduct did not amount to a breach of Article 8 ECHR. Damages for assault were assessed at £50, with no aggravated or exemplary damages warranted.
Court Disposition
Claimant succeeds in assault; other claims dismissed.
Orders
- Defendant to pay claimant £50 in damages for assault.
- No aggravated or exemplary damages awarded.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment