Fede v Gray by his tutor New South Wales Trustee and Guardian

[2018] NSWCA 316

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Trespass to the person
3. › Battery
4. › Mental element
5. › Whether act must be 'voluntary' in sense of directed by conscious mind
6. › Whether mental illness (psychosis) affords defence to battery
7. › Whether defendant suffering drug-induced psychosis capable of committing battery
8. › Weaver v Ward (1616) Hob 134; 80 ER 284
1. Torts
2. › Trespass to the person
3. › Battery
4. › Defences
5. › Mental illness
6. › Whether mental illness constitutes defence to trespass to person
7. › Whether drug-induced psychosis renders act 'utterly without fault'
1. Damages
2. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
3. › Exclusion from Act
4. › Intentional act done with intent to cause injury
5. › Whether defendant's act 'intentional' where directed by conscious mind
6. › Whether defendant not understanding nature and quality of action can intend to cause injury
7. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B(1)(a)
1. Damages
2. › Exemplary damages
3. › Whether exemplary damages should be awarded
4. › Relevance of defendant's drug use and psychosis
5. › Whether defendant committed conscious wrongdoing in contumelious disregard of plaintiff's rights
6. › Whether criminal punishment precludes exemplary damages
7. › Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1

Quick Take

A defendant suffering drug-induced psychosis who commits battery is liable where the act was directed by the conscious mind, even if the defendant did not understand the nature and quality of the act; however, the CLA may still govern damages if the defendant lacked specific intent to cause injury under s 3B(1)(a).