Have any questions? Call us: 
Claims against assailants for injury compensation damages from domestic violence events are on the rise.
In May 2023 the Queensland Court of Appeal upheld by $1 million judgement in favour of Gold Coast woman Caitlin Gardiner against her estranged husband for a break and enter into her Ashmore condo when he committed a terrorising assault.
Teresa Eastlake filed a similar claim in Cairns against her former de facto partner citing 10 instances of violence from 2010.
Only three episodes were within the six-year time limit that applies to assaults when the lawsuit was filed in August 2022 after her partner – Shannon Capner – was jailed for his offences.
Neither Capner nor the Public Trustee – as temporary manager of his estate while he was incarcerated – filed a defence to the proceedings.
That permitted her to enter judgement by default for “damages to be assessed” by the court.
The assessment eventually came before the Supreme Court in Cairns where Justice Jim Henry considered the shameful evidence Eastlake presented.
Neither Capner nor the Public Trustee attended any part of the proceedings to oppose her contentions.
Six of the time-barred events – because they had occurred more than six years before the lawsuit was filed – were particularised in her claim only to establish the violent, abusive and terrifying domestic environment in which she was situated.
Those violent episodes – including water boarding and using jumper leads to deliver electric shocks – demonstrated Eastlake was conditioned to the futility of any attempt at escape and the grave risk to her safety in defying her partner or trying to put an end to his angry and violent episodes by contacting police.
The first of the three viable claims was for an assault in July 2017 when Capner knocked her to the floor and – standing over her – punched her continuously. He pulled onto a bed and continued to punch her in the head before throwing her back down, all the time in a violent rage and spewing degrading insults.
“Get the fuck out” he screamed, while at the same time threating to kill her and her friend if she left him.
Wielding a kitchen knife he yelled “Try to outrun me. I’m going to run you down. See how far you get before I stab you.”
A similar event that year finished with him dragging her by her hair back into the bedroom while at the same time spitting in her face and kicking into her back.
On another occasion in 2018, he ordered her into the car, before getting a shovel and making terrifying threats about driving off to kill her with a shotgun. When she refused to get in, he dragged her into a shed by her hair until she passed out. When she re-gained consciousness he was standing over her with a sledgehammer that he swung to land millimetres from her head. He pulled her up and was walking her – with a knife to her throat and a forearm folded up behind her back – to the car when the police arrived, sirens blazing.
Justice Henry was satisfied each of the events in 2017 met the elements of ‘wrongful imprisonment’ because of the threats against her leaving and the actual deprivation of Eastlake’s liberty.
He observed that the tort of ‘wrongful imprisonment’ first evolved as redress against wrongful incarceration by the state but has evolved more broadly to cover any restraint of physical movement of another, “whether by confining the person in or preventing the person from leaving a place by force, threat or coercion, without lawful justification”.
He also noted the tort carries a presumption that the natural and probable consequence of such conduct is injury or damage.
Damages – he declared – are “at large,” their purpose being “reparation to the victim for having been deprived of the elementary and absolute right to personal liberty”.
Also important is the observation that “aggravated damages” may be awarded for injury to the plaintiff’s feelings or dignity but courts have been inclined to make aggregate awards for general and aggravated damages without specifying any amount for each component.
On the other hand, “exemplary damages” – awarded to punish and mark the court’s disapprobation of egregious conduct – must be separately expressed.
After considering the very unpleasant facts, he awarded $45,000 as combined general and aggravated damages for each 2017 event and $130,000 for the 2018 terrifying event that was only interrupted by the arrival of police.
Justice Henry then considered a fourth 2013 event – “broadly comparable” to the two brutal episodes in 2017 – for which Eastlake also claimed compensation.
He observed that the time bar dis not curtail the jurisdiction of the court but rather gave a defendant the choice to plead a limitation defence or to forego it.
“In the present case, the defendant’s choice not to engage in defence of the litigation means he has foregone a right conferred by statute”.
He ordered Capner pay a further $50,000 compensation for that episode plus $20,000 for exemplary damages in connection to it.
The total award including interest topped out at $364,000.
Presumably Capner has assets against which the judgment can be enforced.
Eastlake v Capner [2024] QSC 136 Henry J, 16 September 2024
Categories: psychological injury