The Intent to Injure: Court Rules on Liability in Rugby Tackle Case

May 25, 2023 | Publication

In 2016, Mr Dickson sustained serious injuries after receiving a spear tackle, or dangerous throw by an opponent, Mr Fletcher. The tackle happened to be filmed, and the film was later used as evidence.

Mr Dickson pursed a claim against Mr Fletcher for damages in tort, alleging that the injuries sustained were due to the negligence of Mr Fletcher, and further, that the North Lakes Rugby League Sport and Recreation Club Inc, was vicariously liable. 

During the trial, Mr. Fletcher admitted that the spear tackle was an intentional act. The key question was whether Mr. Fletcher intended to cause injury, which would exclude the application of the Civil Liability Act 2005 (NSW) (“the CLA”) under section 3B(1)(a). Section 3B(1)(a) of the CLA states that it does not apply to civil liability arising from an intentional act done with intent to cause injury or death. The primary judge concluded that Mr. Dickson had failed to prove that Mr. Fletcher intended to cause injury, and judgment was entered in favour of the respondents. The primary judge also ordered Mr. Dickson to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Mr. Dickson appealed the finding that Mr. Fletcher did not intend to cause injury. The main issue on appeal was whether the CLA’s operation was excluded because Mr. Fletcher intended to cause injury, as per section 3B(1)(a).

The Court of Appeal, composed of Simpson AJA, Basten and White JJA, dismissed the appeal and provided the following key points:

Basten JA:

  • The ordinary meaning of “with intent to cause injury” in the context of the CLA refers to a specific actual or subjective intention to achieve the consequence of injury.
  • The term “injury” in section 3B(1)(a) of the CLA refers to the injury that has resulted in compensable loss. The section does not apply if the intent is to cause an injury that is not the subject of the claim.

White JA:

  • The intent to cause injury (or death) mentioned in section 3B(1)(a) requires an actual subjective intent. Recklessness alone is not sufficient.
  • Since the primary judge’s finding that Mr. Fletcher lacked an intention to injure Mr. Dickson was accepted, the court did not express a view on any possible limitations on the scope of the words in section 3B(1)(a).

Simpson AJA:

  • When the harm suffered is the natural and probable consequence of the tortious conduct, it lies within the presumed intention of the tortfeasor. Different considerations arise when the actual harm suffered is different from what the tortfeasor intended.

The presumption that a wrongdoer intends the natural and probable consequences of their conduct does not apply in this case. Although injury was foreseeable and Mr. Fletcher acted recklessly, neither factor was sufficient to establish the intent required under section 3B(1)(a).

The court acknowledged that there is no authoritative determination of the precise scope of “intent to cause injury” in section 3B(1)(a) of the CLA. However, it held that the term should be understood as an actual, subjective, and formulated intention, excluding recklessness, imputed intention, or presumed intention.

In summary, the court affirmed the primary judge’s finding that Mr. Fletcher did not possess the required actual, subjective intention to cause injury to Mr. Dickson. Therefore, the operation of the CLA was not excluded, and the appeal was dismissed.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

How does the court assess pain and suffering?

In New South Wales (NSW), the assessment of pain and suffering—referred to legally as non-economic loss—is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA"). This is compensation for the intangible effects of the injury, such as pain and suffering, loss of...

Property Disputes – How Can They Arise?

Property disputes arise in many different ways – not only in commercial contexts but also in residential settings.  Some of the types of property disputes include:...

Can a Child under 14 years commit a Crime?

In New South Wales, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old.  A child under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence. For children aged 10 to under 14, there is a legal presumption known as doli incapax, which assumes the child is incapable of...

Why is it important to know who your client is?

In a range of contexts, it is important to know who your client is. In most professional service contexts, the identity of the client is the starting point to providing advice.  If it is not clear who the professional advisor is advising, this can cause issues as...

Mental Harm Damages Following Birth Trauma: Lessons from Sorbello

In South Western Sydney Local Health District v Sorbello [2024] NSWCA 14, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has provided timely guidance on two important issues in personal injury litigation: how courts choose between competing expert opinions on mental harm, and...

Damages for Defamation – Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275

A family dispute resolution practitioner was awarded $150,000 in aggravated damages, $10,000 in interest, and an injunction in a recent Supreme Court of New South Wales case. The defendant posted defamatory statements about the plaintiff on WordPress, Facebook, and...

Review Panel Determines Right Hand Injury as Non-Threshold Injury

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) has ruled in Tasseli v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 49 that damage to pre-existing surgical hardware constitutes a non-threshold injury, entitling the Claimant to ongoing statutory benefits and...

What are 5 legal requirements for a business?

When a new business is set up, there are various legal aspects which should be considered.  Some are more important than others in the early stages.  Obviously the nature of the business will dictate more specific legal requirements. We set out below some...

Court Dismisses Group Proceeding

A significant class action against Waller Legal Pty Ltd has been halted after the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that the proceeding should no longer continue as a group proceeding. The case, Jane Jones (a pseudonym) v Waller Legal Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 42, involved...