Darwish v Egyptair Ltd.

An assault, as distinct from a battery, requires conduct causing the claimant to apprehend immediate unlawful force. Whether words convey such a threat depends on the circumstances in which they are used. A phrase capable of threatening violence may instead be figurative or mere bravado. The claimant must in fact apprehend an attack, and must have reason to do so in the circumstances. Where the court finds that no such apprehension occurred, and that the defendant did not intend to cause it, the claim for assault fails.

The claimant, an Egyptair employee, brought a High Court claim for damages for post-traumatic stress disorder arising from an alleged assault by Egyptair’s United Kingdom and Ireland general manager during a workplace meeting. The claim was confined to personal injury caused by the alleged assault, and liability was tried separately from causation and quantum.

The alleged assault consisted of words translated as an indication that the claimant would be physically mistreated, accompanied, on the claimant’s case, by a movement suggesting that the defendant was about to rise. The central issue was whether the defendant caused the claimant to apprehend immediate unlawful force.

1. The claim failed. The court found that the claimant did not apprehend an attack at the relevant time and had no reason to do so. The defendant also did not intend to cause him to anticipate an attack.
2. Assault, as distinct from battery, requires causing a person to apprehend that he will be subjected to immediate unlawful force. The issue was therefore determined by the circumstances of the meeting and the effect of the defendant’s conduct in those circumstances.
3. The expression translated as “I’ll wipe the floor with you” was capable of meaning a threat of physical violence, but its meaning depended on context. It could also be used figuratively. In this case the defendant used the phrase in a flash of temper and bravado. His voice became quieter, he did not stand up, and the presence of his superior was a strong restraining influence.
4. The court rejected the claimant’s account that the defendant swivelled in his chair and began to rise aggressively. The evidence supported the conclusion that the claimant’s assertion of apprehension was a product of his overwrought state. The claim was accordingly dismissed.

Not stated in the judgment.