Lewis v ACT

Last updated

Lewis v ACT
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameLewis v Australian Capital Territory
Decided5 August 2020
Citation(s) [2020] HCA 26
Case history
Prior action(s) [2019] ACTCA 16
Case opinions
appeal dismissed with costs
(Kiefel, Keane JJ)
(Gageler J)
(Gordon J)
(Edelman J)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gageler, Gordon & Edelman JJ

Lewis v ACT is a decision of the High Court of Australia. [1] The decision is a significant[ citation needed ] Australian Tort Law ruling for its holdings on the role of damages.

Contents

The court unanimously ruled that a purported category of damages called "vindicatory damages" are not recognised as a distinct form of common law damages in Australia, as distinct from existing heads of damage such as nominal or compensatory damages. [2]

Factual Background

The appellant, Lewis, was sentenced to 12 month's imprisonment for an assault occasioning bodily harm. [3] His sentence was to be served by a scheme in place at the time in the ACT, whereby he would be subject to periodic detention on weekends. He failed on four occasions to attend the periodic detention in the manner required. He was then notified by the Sentence Administration Board of an inquiry, which he did not attend. The board cancelled Lewis' periodic detention, and he was arrested and imprisoned as a result.

Lewis successfully challenged the decision to cancel his periodic detention through litigation, on the basis he had been denied procedural fairness. Lewis was granted bail pending the hearing of that challenge, and never served his initial sentence of periodic detention. [3]

Lewis subsequently sought damages from the Australian Capital Territory for false imprisonment, for the 82 days of imprisonment he served before being granted bail. The primary judge Refshauge J assessed that damages for a false imprisonment of this kind would ordinarily be set at $100,000; but ordered that only nominal damages should be awarded. That was because the judge found that even if Lewis had not been denied procedural fairness; he would have inevitably been imprisoned full-time upon the cancellation of his periodic detention anyway. In other words, the denial of procedural fairness did not cause Lewis a loss to be compensated for with damages. [4]

Lewis then appealed to the High Court, asking for substantial damages of $100,000 to be awarded against the ACT for his 82 days of imprisonment.

The Decision

The court stated that two questions arose from the appeal. [5] The first was whether Lewis could 'recover substantial damages for the tort of false imprisonment, simply to vindicate his rights irrespective of whether he has suffered any loss, and without an award of exemplary damages'. The court ruled that he could not, as vindicatory damages are not recognised as form of damages in Australia. [2]

The second question was 'whether he could recover substantial damages for the adverse consequences he suffered, from the same imprisonment that would have occurred lawfully; even if the wrongful act had not occurred'. [5] The court found that he could not.

See also

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

Defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime. In several countries, including South Korea, a true statement can also be considered defamation.

A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial loss, injury, invasion of privacy, and numerous other harms. The word tort stems from Old French via the Norman Conquest and Latin via the Roman Empire.

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may possibly be brought up on charges of the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

Imprisonment is the restraint of a person's liberty, for any cause whatsoever, whether by authority of the government, or by a person acting without such authority. In the latter case it is "false imprisonment". Imprisonment does not necessarily imply a place of confinement, with bolts and bars, but may be exercised by any use or display of force, lawfully or unlawfully, wherever displayed, even in the open street. People become prisoners, wherever they may be, by the mere word or touch of a duly authorized officer directed to that end. Usually, however, imprisonment is understood to imply an actual confinement in a jail or prison employed for the purpose according to the provisions of the law.

Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.

In Australia, Torts are common law actions for civil wrongs. Unless barred by statute, individuals are entitled to sue other people, or the state; for the purpose of obtaining a legal remedy for the wrong committed.

<i>Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)</i>

Kable v DPP, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It is a significant case in Australian Constitutional law.

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is an untrue or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.

Misleading or deceptive conduct is a doctrine of Australian law.

Remand (detention) Detention after arrest and charge until a trial

Remand, also known as pre-trial detention, preventive detention, or provisional detention, is the process of detaining a person until their trial after they have been arrested and charged with an offence. A person who is on remand is held in a prison or detention centre or held under house arrest. Varying terminology is used, but "remand" is generally used in common law jurisdictions and "preventive detention" elsewhere. However, in the United States, "remand" is rare except in official documents and "kept in custody until trial" is used in the media and even by judges and lawyers in addressing the public. Detention before charge is referred to as custody and continued detention after conviction is referred to as imprisonment.

<i>Brown v Tasmania</i>

Brown v Tasmania, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 18 October 2017. The case was an important decision about the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution in which the majority held that provisions of the Tasmanian Protesters Act. were invalid as a burden on the implied freedom of political communication in a way that was not reasonably appropriate and adapted, or proportionate, to the legitimate purpose of protecting businesses and their operations.

<i>Love v Commonwealth</i>

Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth is a High Court of Australia case that held that Aboriginal Australians could not be classified as aliens under section 51(xix) of the Australian Constitution. The case was decided on 11 February 2020.

<i>Comcare v Banerji</i> Legal case in the High Court of Australia

Comcare v Banerji is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was an appeal brought by Comcare against former public servant Michaela Banerji, seeking to overturn a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal had declared that termination of her employment was not a reasonable administrative action; once regard was had to the implied freedom of political communication.

<i>Clubb v Edwards</i> Legal case in the High Court of Australia

Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was a combined hearing of two appeals, raised from the Magistrates Court of Victoria and Tasmania respectively. The appellants, Kathleen Clubb and John Preston; had sought to challenge two laws restricting their conduct near abortion providers, on the ground that the relevant laws were unconstitutional for breach of Australia's freedom of political communication doctrine.

<i>ASIC v Kobelt</i> Legal case in the High Court of Australia

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was an appeal brought by ASIC against a Mr Kobelt, seeking to overturn a unanimous decision of the Full Federal Court. The court had found that while Mr Kobelt had contravened s29(1) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) ; he did not engage in 'unconscionable conduct in connection with financial services' in contravention with s12CB(1) of the ASIC Act.

<i>Berry v CCL Secure Ltd</i> Legal case in the High Court of Australia

Benoy Berry & Global Secure Currency Limited v CCL Secure Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia, concerning the assessment of damages for deliberately deceptive conduct under s82 of the Trade Practices Act.

References

  1. Lewis v ACT [2020] HCA 26. Judgment summary (PDF), High Court, 5 August 2020
  2. 1 2 Lewis v ACT [2020] HCA 26 at para. 2 (Kiefel & Keane), para. 22 (Gageler), para. 51 (Gordon), para. 153 (Edelman)
  3. 1 2 Lewis v ACT [2020] HCA 26 at para. 123 (Edelman)
  4. Lewis v ACT [2020] HCA 26 at para. 124 (Edelman)
  5. 1 2 Lewis v ACT [2020] HCA 26 at para. 125 (Edelman), concurring at para. 1 (Kiefel & Keane)