Parmer v Big Security Company Ltd & Ors

In a civil claim for assault and battery, the defendant bears the burden of establishing self-defence. A mistaken belief in the need for self-defence must be reasonably held, and the force used must be reasonable in the circumstances. Contributory negligence may reduce damages for assault and battery, including where the claimant’s earlier violence forms part of the causal sequence. Apportionment requires assessment of blameworthiness and causative potency. Deliberate force directed towards a dangerous obstacle may be substantially more blameworthy than the claimant’s preceding, short-lived violence.

The claimant was injured outside a public house after being pushed by a doorman employed by the defendants. The defendants contended that the claimant had assaulted another doorman and that the push was lawful self-defence. The claimant denied this account and relied on CCTV and eyewitness evidence.

The court had to determine whether the push was an unlawful assault and battery, whether the defendants had established self-defence, whether the claimant’s earlier conduct constituted contributory negligence, and how responsibility should be apportioned.

1. The claim succeeded in principle. The court found that Mr Colby deliberately pushed the claimant, causing him to fall against a temporary barrier and into the road. The push was an assault and battery.
2. Following Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2007] 1 WLR 398, the burden of proving self-defence in a civil action lay on the defendant. The defendant had to establish both a reasonable belief that force was necessary and the reasonableness of the force used. The court declined to resolve any possible tension between Regina v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans (No 2) and [2001] 2 AC 19 and Ashley, treating itself as bound by Ashley.
3. The evidence did not establish that the claimant had kicked Mr Colby or squared up to him immediately before the push. The defendant therefore failed to discharge the burden of proving lawful self-defence.
4. Contributory negligence was available in a claim for assault and battery. The claimant had voluntarily participated in a brief assault on another doorman, and that conduct formed part of the chain of causation leading to his injury.
5. In apportioning responsibility, the court considered blameworthiness and causative potency. The claimant’s earlier violence was blameworthy, but Mr Colby’s deliberate push was the immediate and substantially more potent cause of the injury. The decision in Revill v Newbury [1996] QB 567 was distinguished because it concerned negligence, a serious contemporaneous criminal act, and a different factual context.
6. Liability was apportioned 70 per cent to the claimant and 30 per cent to the defendant. Agreed damages of £35,000 were reduced by 30 per cent, producing an award of £24,500.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.