Benjamin Andrew Hughes v Matthew Bramston

2025/00395509

TORTS (other) – on 18 February 2025, the respondent commenced proceedings against the appellant alleging that on 17 December 2022 the appellant punched and/or struck him on the neck and chin in an unprovoked attack and held the respondent’s jacket – the respondent further alleged that the force of the blow and the appellant’s momentum, together with the appellant continuing firmly to hold the respondent, caused the respondent to fall backwards, trip over a plastic step and into the door jamb and onto the metal checker plate at the doorway – the respondent sought damages for assault and battery which he said caused him a significant injury to his left knee, blunt trauma and injury to his face and neck, and psychological sequelae – the appellant argued the chain of causation was broken between the acts of the appellant and the injury to the respondent, that he did not intend to cause injuries or harm to the respondent, and that he acted in self-defence within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002 (CLA) – the primary judge held that the respondent had established his claims in assault and battery and that the appellant had not established any defence – the primary judge further held that the respondent was entitled to general damages in the amount of $438,392.97, aggravated damages in the amount of $25,000 and exemplary damages in the amount of $50,000 – in determining the amount of exemplary damages to be awarded, the primary judge gave consideration to the conduct of the appellant’s solicitor during the trial – the primary judge found that the solicitor, while acting on the appellant’s instructions, or at least with his knowledge, had provided to a journalist CCTV footage obtained in discovery which was unfavourable to the respondent – the primary judge considered this to be a breach of the obligations arising under the decisions in Hearne v Street and Harman v Secretary of State of Home Department warranting an award of exemplary damages – whether the primary judge erred in her Honour’s assessment of the respondent as a witness – whether the primary judge erred in making various factual findings – whether the primary judge erred by only engaging with self-defence at common law rather than statutory self-defence under Part 7 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – whether the primary judge erred as to the damages awarded – whether the primary judge erred in considering that the obligations arising under Hearne v Street and Harman v Secretary of State of Home Department were applicable to any material that may have been provided to any journalist.

2023/00426828 Matthew Bramston v Benjamin Andrew Hughes