Pelling v Johnson

Pelling v Johnson

The defendant intentionally made physical contact with the claimant, constituting assault, but did not act in bad faith or with subjective recklessness, so misfeasance in public office was not established. No breach of Article 8 rights or entitlement to aggravated or exemplary damages was found.

Parties
Claimant: Michael John Pelling; Defendant: Philip Johnson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeds in assault claim; other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Assault, Misfeasance in Public Office, Damages, European Convention on Human Rights
Tort Law Public Law Assault Misfeasance in Public Office Damages European Convention on Human Rights

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Pelling

Claimant

Philip Johnson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant committed assault against the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant committed misfeasance in public office
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were breached

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant intentionally made physical contact with the claimant, constituting assault, but did not act in bad faith or with subjective recklessness, so misfeasance in public office was not established. No breach of Article 8 rights or entitlement to aggravated or exemplary damages was found.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds in assault claim; other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £50 in damages for assault.
  • No aggravated or exemplary damages awarded.