Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Appleton v Garrett - Case Summary

324 words (1 pages) Case Summary

18th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): Australian Law

Appleton v Garrett [1996] 5 PIQR P1



The claimants were patients of the defendant dentist, who had carried out unnecessary treatment upon them. The defendant had deliberately withheld information about the necessity of the treatment in the knowledge that they would not have consented to the treatment had he made them aware of the facts.

The claimants sought aggravated damages from the defendant on the basis that, inter alia, they had suffered trespass to the person.


The issues were firstly whether liability for trespass to the person was made out in the circumstances, and secondly whether aggravated damages could be awarded for trespass to the person.


On the first issue, the court held that the lack of consent to the treatment on teeth which did not require treatment was sufficient to establish liability for trespass to the person.

On the second issue, the court held that there were two elements which determined the availability of aggravated damages: firstly, the presence of ‘exceptional’ or ‘contumelious’ conduct by the defendant; secondly, ‘intangible loss’ or injury to the personality suffered by the claimant. On the facts of this case, the first element was made out as the defendant had deliberately caused pain and damage to the claimants, who had placed him in a position of trust. The second element was also present as the claimants had suffered a heightened sense of injury upon learning that their treatments had been unnecessary.  In quantifying the damages, the court followed the principle in W v Meah [1986] 1 All E.R. 935 that aggravated damages should be moderate; in this case, they were assessed at 15% of the general damages awarded.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "Australian Law"

This selection of academic papers covers the legal system of Australia and contains, essays, dissertations and case summaries which may be of interest to Australian law students or those studying Australian laws from outside Australia.

Related Articles