LAW1113 Case Note: Assault and Battery in Chetcuti v Connex Trains

This case note analyzes the case of ACN 087 528 774 Pty Ltd (formerly Connex Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd) v Chetcuti [2008] VSCA 274, focusing on the Court of Appeal's discussion of the torts of assault and battery. The case involves an incident where the respondent, Joseph Chetcuti, was involved in aggressive conduct towards railway inspectors, leading to a chase and subsequent injury. The case examines the essential elements of assault, including the requirement of a subjective intention by the defendant to create apprehension of immediate harm in the plaintiff's mind, and the need for the plaintiff's apprehension to be objectively reasonable. The note also discusses battery, emphasizing that intent is satisfied if the defendant intends to perform the act constituting the battery. The analysis delves into the trial judge's errors in applying these principles, particularly regarding the rationality of the plaintiff's belief and the subjective intent of the defendant. The case note further explores relevant legal precedents and the application of these principles to the specific facts, highlighting the complexities of determining assault and battery in the context of the case.

LAW1113_student ID number_(1500 Words)
TORT LAW
pg. 0
APRIL 10, 2019
student name:

LAW1113_student ID number_(1500 Words)
Case: ACN 087 528 774 Pty Ltd (formerly Connex Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd) v
Chetcuti [2008] VSCA 274
Citation: [2008] VSCA 274; 21 VR 559
Parties: ACN 087 528 774 PTY LTD (Appellant)
JOSEPH CHETCUTI (Respondent)
Court: Melbourne Court
Date: 18 December 2008
Judges: Ashley and Dodds-Streeton Jja and Hargrave Aja
In a case of ACN 087 528 774 Pty Ltd (formerly Connex Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd) v Chetcuti
[2008] VSCA 274, the plaintiff was the public transport corporation running railway service in
Melbourne. The defendant, Joseph Chetcuti, took an entry in railway station to catch train on time.
The event then happened where the complainant involved in aggressive and greatly challenging
conduct to 2 inspectors hired by the respondent. At the time of this event, the applicant fight in a
face of an officer and dedicated the number of crimes in the contradiction of the Transport Act
1983 (Vic). At the time of going away with inspector of respondent in chase, appellant fell and
cracked the right wrist before bodily controlled. The argument of complainant was that the
complainant had run away from the officer of respondent. The reason is that it was expected by
him that they will bash him as revenge for an action of expelling1.
In actions of appellant in County Court of Victoria (Chetcuti v Connex Trains [2007] VCC 166) to
get the damage for assault and battery, a respondent, for reason impenetrable, not based on the
legal defences of explanations. Trial judges granted considerable damage to the appellant for
assault stating facts that wrist injury of appellant was severe and everlasting. It was held by the trial
judge that the physical restraint of the appellant by both the officers of respondent established
battery. However, it had not caused the compensable harm2. The Court of Appeal of Victoria
permitted the appeal of the respondent on the basis that the trial judge had performed over the
misconception of components of tort of assault. However, proceeding was forwarded for re-check
on matters. The reason is that the trial judge had not succeed to state the entireness of the matter
of appellant as stated in a hearing. An appellant was looking for to develop the action’s cause for
tort of assault, in a condition wherein no bodily communication or battery in facts gets place, should
ascertain certain factors. These elements are discussed as below.
First, the fear by a respondent, by action or word, to impose damaging or violent action on the
appellant directly, Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98, 114, Barton v Armstrong
[1969] 2 NSWR 451, 454-5. This is sufficient in a case where the fear is to conduct the interaction
1 Jennifer Robbennolt and Hans Valerie, The psychology of tort law (Springer, 2016)
2 Reinier Kraakman and Hansmann Henry, The end of history for corporate law (LexisNexis, 2017).
pg. 1

LAW1113_student ID number_(1500 Words)
to appellant’s body without intention and permission of appellant or without the lawful justifications.
In a case of Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98, 112-3, a fear to catch and hinder the
appellant, by holding, was the proper and enough fear to satisfy the tort’s elements. Secondly, the
subjective intent on a portion of the respondent that a fear would make in a mind of the appellant a
concern that a fear would be carried immediately; Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR
98, 114 and Rozsa v Samuels [1969] SASR 205, 207. In a case of Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd
(2001) 53 NSWLR 98, 114, this is not essential to state that a respondent in fact expects to convey
fear3.
Subsequently, a fear should in fact make in a mind of an appellant the concern that the fear would
be carried straightaway. This is not essential for an appellant to fear the threats, in a manner of
being scared by this. This is sufficient in a case where the appellant concerns that the fear would
be carried without the consents like in as case of Brady v Schatzel [1911] St R Qd 206, 208 as
stated in P Cane, M Lunney and F Trindade, The Australian Law of Tort (4th ed, 2007) 53.
Furthermore, in a case of Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWR 451, 455 as stated in R P Balkin
and J L R Davis, The Law of Tort (3rd ed, 2004) 48, it was held that the concern in the mind of an
appellant should be objectively rational. It is also required to prove that the proper concern of
appellant caused injuries, damages or to the appellant. These needs attract the normal concept of
common law regarding the causations by referencing common sense and, where proper,
considerations of normative components like the value judgement and policy consideration in a
case of March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 506, 516-74. The case of Brady v
Schatzel [1911] St R Qd 206 is very useful5.
A case of Brady v Schatzel [1911] St R Qd 206 is well known in a Criminal Code state like
Western Australia, Tasmania and Queensland, However, it is not so recognised in Victoria. The
respondent scared the inspector of appellant by pointing the gun at him. The appeal measured in
the case where this was essential to develop the threat or fright to ascertain the assault. The case
of Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWR 451 is the tort case charging the assault by the
respondent who rang inspector of appellant and frightened him with severe attack. It was held by a
court that fears over a phone in certain situation were not mere terms and can amount to the
assault while appellant scared later bodily attack6.
The trial magistrate erred in 2 significant contexts. Firstly, it is said by magistrate that this was
enough to fulfil the initial 2 components of tort of assault, as mentioned before, for defendant to
involve in an deliberated action that makes in a mind of the appellant a concern of forthcoming
physical abuse or damage. This is the statement of objective intentions, and avoids the need that a
3 Vera Bermingham, and Brennan Carol, Tort law directions (Oxford University Press, 2018).
4 Mark Tushnet, Comparative constitutional law (Oxford University Press 2017).
5 Ronen Avraham, Database of state tort law reforms (Springer 2018).
6 John Goldberg, Sebok Anthony, and Zipursky Benjamin, Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress (Aspen Publishers,
2016).
pg. 2

LAW1113_student ID number_(1500 Words)
respondent should subjectively mean to make this concern7. Secondly, a trial judge did not make
the references to a 4th component of tort mentioned as before. Now here, in the reason is there the
deliberation of a rationality of the belief of plaintiff, Joseph Chetcuti that the two inspectors of the
respondent envisioned to the cause him injurious or aggressive contact in the case where the
chase caused in him being trapped8.
Besides this, it can be said that, on a substantial represented to the Court, trial magistrate did not
attained guidance and help from the counsel to that there was permission given to her9. As per the
course of arguments on the plea, the counsel gave it court with short-lived written submission
created to a trial magistrate on behalf of plaintiff, Joseph Chetcuti and extract from a record of oral
submission. Now here, in this submission was a consideration of magistrate drawn to the proper
mental factors of the intentions and concerns that are essential to develop to demonstrate the tort
of assault. For amounting that tort of battery can need intent, this is sufficient that a respondent
aims to conduct actions that make the battery. The facts are established in a case of Rixon v Star
City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98, McClelland v Symons [1951] VLR 157, 166, and R P
Balkin and J L R Davis, the tort law (3rd ed, 2004) 35-810.
As per an above analysis, it can be concluded that it significantly clarifies that assault frightening
illegal force, instead of the battery, implementing the illegal force, does not comprise the points of
an evidence that the appellant was scared, simply that they scared, alleged or concerned the
force’s application11. In this way, it can be said that where the psychological elements in assault
are the purpose on a portion of the respondent to cause the appellant to detain the pending
request of illegal forces, a requisite purpose is subjective, not objective12. Furthermore, a concern
of appellant of the forthcoming application of illegal force should be the rational one. In this way,
this is not essential for the appellant to have the threats, in a way of being scared through this. This
is sufficient in a case where the appellant takes in for questioning that the fear would be carried the
without the intentions or consents13.
7 Karaboue Pastorini, and Ciallella Cen, Medico-legal aspects of tort law patient safeguards within the Gelli-Bianco
piece of legislation (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017).
8 James Baxter, The law of Torts (Springer, 2016).
9 Jane Wright, Tort law and human rights. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017).
10 , Cristina Carmody Tilley, Tort Law inside out (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2017).
11 Ginnie Andrews, The tort law (Cambridge University Press, 2016)
12 Donald Zillman, Simmons Jack and Gregory David, Maine Tort Law (LexisNexis, 2015).
13 Arthur Best, Barnes David and Kahn-Fogel Nicholas, Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and problems (Wolters Kluwer
Law & Business, 2018).
pg. 3

LAW1113_student ID number_(1500 Words)
Bibliography
A. Articles/ Books/ Reports
Andrews, Ginnie, The tort law (Cambridge University Press, 2016)
Avraham, Ronen, Database of state tort law reforms (Springer 2018).
Baxter, James, The law of Torts (Springer, 2016).
Bermingham, Vera, and Carol, Brennan, Tort law directions (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Best, Arthur, David, Barnes, and Nicholas, Kahn-Fogel, Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and
problems (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2018).
Goldberg, John, Anthony, Sebok, and Benjamin, Zipursky, Tort Law: Responsibilities and
Redress (Aspen Publishers, 2016).
Kraakman, Reinier, and Henry, Hansmann, The end of history for corporate law (LexisNexis,
2017).
Pastorini, Karaboue, and Cen, Ciallella, Medico-legal aspects of tort law patient safeguards
within the Gelli-Bianco piece of legislation (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017).
Robbennolt, Jennifer, and Valerie, Hans, The psychology of tort law (Springer, 2016).
Tilley, Cristina Carmody, Tort Law inside out (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2017).
Tushnet, Mark, Comparative constitutional law (Oxford University Press 2017).
Wright, Jane, Tort law and human rights. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017).
Zillman, Donald, Jack, Simmons, and David, Gregory, Maine Tort Law (LexisNexis, 2015).
pg. 4