McFadzean & Ors v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union & Ors

(2007) 20 VR 250; [2007] VSCA 289

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › False imprisonment
3. › Elements
4. › Total restraint of movement
5. › Whether availability of alternative means of egress negates total restraint
6. › Whether police assistance constitutes reasonable means of egress
7. › Whether walking through dense bush constitutes reasonable means of egress
8. › Whether plaintiff's wish to remain for own reasons precludes claim
1. Tort
2. › Public nuisance
3. › Obstruction of highway
4. › Particular damage
5. › Whether degree of nuisance went beyond general inconvenience
6. › Whether static picket on public road constitutes unreasonable obstruction
7. › Whether plaintiff must establish intent to travel on obstructed highway
1. Tort
2. › Damages
3. › Exemplary damages
4. › Discretion
5. › Whether compensatory damages including aggravated damages adequate punishment
6. › Appellate review of discretionary refusal
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Apportionment of costs
4. › Mixed success and failure
5. › Single proportionate costs order
6. › Whether costs order should reflect partial success on alternative claims

Quick Take

The availability of police assistance to secure release from unlawful detention is not a defence to false imprisonment; requiring a plaintiff to invoke police aid to escape a defendant's restraint does not negate the total restraint element. A static picket line on a public road constitutes a public nuisance as an unreasonable obstruction irreconcilable with the right of free passage. However, a plaintiff who wishes to remain at the place of confinement for their own reasons cannot establish false imprisonment, and a plaintiff in public nuisance must establish particular damage beyond general inconvenience, including an intent to travel on the obstructed highway.