Ana v Brad and Connie : Assault Ana has an action in assault against Brad and Connie which directly produced apprehension in Brad and Connie. To satisfy the elements of assault Ana created a direct threat and threat can be identified from her violent act. Furthermore, that could be identified that plaintiff’s apprehension must be reasonable and threatened interference is imminent. The act was intended and Ana would have foreseen it as she was concerned about safety warnings. Relatively, the case of Brady v Schatzel [1911] St R Qd 206 shows that there is no intention to committed battery is not relevant. Further to the case of Stephens v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735 A completed battery is also not necessary. Similarly Pursell v Horn (1838)112 …show more content…
The action of Graeme and Hetty directly results in an apprehension of imminent or immediate danger in the Desi’s mind. He had no choice rather than calmly walked between Graeme and Hetty .Similar to Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991] 2 VR 597, this may result in deprivation of Desi's freedom of movement. Aggravated damages would be awarded as act would satisfied the false imprisonment and Desi may suffered with ill feelings. Moreover, Graeme grabbed Desi by the arm and pulled him close, and said in a threatening voice ‘you are coming with us now either on your feet or unconscious and over my shoulder.’ Which caused an action in battery against Desi. The physical force was formed by Graeme and willed muscular movement involved and accompanied by fault. With support of Brian Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd [2001] 53 NSWLR 98 as hostile attitude and requisite intention may cause battery. Furthermore, cole v turner (1705) 6 mod 149 ;87 ER 907 confirmed that touching “in anger” must be battery and touching must have “hostile” to satisfy the claim. Wilson v Pringle 1987 1 QB 237,253. Therefore, Graeme may convicted of battery and liable for exemplary …show more content…
This may directly produce apprehension in Ana’s mind and intended could be foreseen it. Though there is no intention to commit the battery as stated in Brady v Schatzel [1911] St R Qd 206. Fee may liable for assault. As per Stephens v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735 completed battery is not necessary and Words alone can constitute assault comparatively Read v Coker (1853) 138 ER 1437 However, as per Read v Coker 1853 13 cb 850;138 ER 1437 word spoken between parties may constitue assault if threatening action involved. Therefore, Fee’s words would not have demonstrated any threating action and Ana has no reasonable apprehension as per MacPherson v Beath (1975) 12 SASR 174 at 177 as no immediate violence involved. Similarly, in Police v Graves [1964] NZLR 295 ‘conditional threat of force’ which the Fee eligible to use is not assault as he has seen Ana was convicted the violence action. Therefore, Fee is not liable for assault and no damages would be