Brad And Connie Vs. Assault: Case Study

Brad v Ada and Connie v Ada
Assault
Brad and Connie may have an action of assault against Ana. To obtain damages, Brad and Connie have to demonstrate that there was an intentional act or threat that directly places them in reasonable apprehension of imminent contact due to the direct acts of the defendant. In Rixon v Star City Casino Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98 (“Rixon”), assault requires proof of an intention to create in Brad’s and Connie’s apprehension of imminent physical interference but does not require an intention to actually cause physical interference to them. In this context, the act of throwing the ‘throw down’ onto the ground is intentional. Ana would argue that she had no intention to harm any when she threw the device. However,
By landing on Desi’s foot heavily is likely to exhibit that there is a physical and direct contact towards Desi. In Brady v Schatzel [1991] St R Qd 206, battery is actionable per se. It does not require any intention to cause any harm and to convict Connie of battery. It was also stated in Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237, the act that causes the application of force to the body of the plaintiff is the relevant intentional act. Connie need not to have the intention to harm Desi, as the intention only relate to the voluntary act to apply the force onto the body of Desi. For Desi to be successful in his battery claim, Desi must demonstrate that there was an intentional negligent act which directly causes physical interference with the body of Desi. However, it would much likely for Connie to argue that there is no intentional to harm Desi. She had no intention to apply any force upon Desi, she was just shocked by the ‘throw down’ that was flung by Ana. The self defence that most likely used by Connie is it was an inevitable accident and involuntary for her to apply force by stepping on Desi’s foot. Hence, Desi is most likely to fail to convict Connie for battery as in the context of the situation, Connie was just protecting herself and is an involuntary act when a ‘throw down’ was activated between her and
To be successful in his claim, Desi must demonstrate that there was an intentional negligent act which directly causes physical interference with the body of the plaintiff. In the context, there was an intentional and physical interference towards Desi by grabbing Desi’s arm and pull him closer to him. It was intentional as Graeme wanted Desi to follow him and Hetty to the on-site Security Office in order to calm the crowd and chaotic scene. Even though this act is accompanied by fault, but Graeme may likely to argue that he has the right to calm the crowd as a security guard. This argument by Graeme is most likely to be successful with the support from the case Rixon, Lord Goff said: “people may be subjected to the lawful exercise of the power of arrest; and reasonable force may be used in self-defence or for the prevention of crime.” Hence, Graeme would be likely to argue that although there was intentional and physical interference action towards Desi, the act was still lawful as he has the right to carry out such act with the purpose of calming the crowd. Thus, Desi will be most likely to fail to convict Graeme for