Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98
Battery Law and the Boundaries of Acceptable Touching in Social Contexts
Court
NSW Court of Appeal
Judges
Priestley JA, Sheller JA and Heydon JA
Citation
[2001] NSWCA 265
Date
28 September 2001
Material Facts
Brian Rixon had a complicated history with Sydney's Star City Casino. In June 1996, after an incident where he claimed security threw him to the floor and put him in arm and leg locks, he was given an exclusion order - essentially a ban from entering the casino. The charges against him from that incident were later dismissed in court.
Despite the ban, Rixon returned to the casino on 25 November 1996 and was playing roulette when his luck ran out - but not in the way gamblers usually fear. A government inspector spotted him and alerted security. What happened next became the heart of the legal dispute.
According to Rixon, security officer Sasha Sheldon (described by witnesses as "a big boy" weighing perhaps 120-130 kilos) grabbed his shoulder and spun him around, asking "Are you Brian Rixon?" Rixon said he felt pain in his neck from being spun. When he confirmed his identity, Sheldon asked him to come to an interview room.
The casino's inspector, Ross Perry, saw things differently. He said he watched Sheldon approach Rixon and speak to him, but didn't see any touching - though he admitted there was a moment when Sheldon stood between him and Rixon, blocking his view.
Rixon went to the interview room without physical force but believed he had no choice. He was kept there for about an hour and a half, during which he asked to call his lawyer (refused), asked to leave (told not to try), and requested to use the toilet multiple times (eventually allowed after 45 minutes). He also experienced chest pains and asked for medical attention. When police arrived, he was charged with breaching the exclusion order.
Crucially, the casino's surveillance footage of the actual touching incident had been destroyed - the surveillance director had ordered destruction of all temporary casino tapes without checking if any cases were pending.
Issues
Did placing a hand on someone's shoulder to get their attention constitute battery, even without force or injury?
Sub-issues included:
- Does battery require hostility or anger?
- What physical contact is "generally acceptable in ordinary daily life"?
- Does the context (casino security approaching a banned patron) change what's acceptable?
Key Reasoning
The Trial Judge's Findings
The trial judge made crucial factual findings that shaped the appeal:
- She accepted that Sheldon did place his hand on Rixon's shoulder
- She rejected the claim that Sheldon "grabbed" him or "spun him around"
- She found Sheldon used no force and caused no injury
- She inferred from the casino's failure to produce Sheldon as a witness that his evidence wouldn't have helped them
Why Hostility Doesn't Matter
The Court of Appeal clarified a common misconception about battery. The trial judge had wrongly found no battery because the touch lacked "anger or hostile attitude."
Lord Goff's authoritative statement made clear: "A prank that gets out of hand; an over-friendly slap on the back; surgical treatment by a surgeon who mistakenly thinks that the patient has consented to it — all these things may transcend the bounds of lawfulness, without being characterised as hostile."
The protection isn't about preventing angry touching - it's about protecting everyone's fundamental right to decide who touches their body.
The Social Reality Exception
The Court explained that while technically "the least touching of another" can be battery, this principle must bend to social reality. We live in a crowded world where physical contact is inevitable. The law recognises two key exceptions:
1. Implied consent
When you board a packed train or enter a crowded venue, you implicitly accept normal, incidental contact
2. Generally acceptable conduct
Society accepts certain touching as part of ordinary daily life
The crucial passage from Collins v Wilcock explained: "touching a person for the purpose of engaging his attention" has long been acceptable, provided it uses "no greater degree of physical contact than is reasonably necessary."
Context is Everything
What's acceptable depends entirely on context. The Court noted that conduct between 13-year-old schoolboys might be "as unremarkable as shaking hands" but completely unacceptable between adults.
Here, the context included:
- A business setting where security had legitimate concerns
- The purpose was simply to get attention and ask a question
- The touch was brief, gentle, on the shoulder
- There was nothing aggressive or threatening about it
Decision/Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed Rixon's appeal, finding no battery occurred. They held:
1. Sheldon's placing his hand on Rixon's shoulder fell within "generally acceptable conduct in ordinary daily life"
2. The absence of hostility was irrelevant - the real question was whether the touching exceeded acceptable social boundaries
3. A gentle touch on the shoulder to get someone's attention, even by casino security, remains within acceptable bounds
4. The trial judge's factual findings (rejecting the "grabbing" and "spinning" claims) were supported by evidence
Key Quotes
"Every person's body is inviolate...any touching of another person, however slight may amount to a battery."
On the fundamental principle
"So nobody can complain of the jostling which is inevitable from his presence in, for example, a supermarket, an underground station or a busy street."
On social reality
"The absence of anger or hostile attitude by the person touching another is not a satisfactory basis for concluding that the touching was not a battery."
On hostile intent
"Touching a person for the purpose of engaging his attention, though of course using no greater degree of physical contact than is reasonably necessary in the circumstances for that purpose."
On acceptable touching
"There the touch was merely to engage [a man's] attention, not to put a restraint upon his person."
The distinction that matters
Significance
This case demonstrates how battery law balances two competing needs: protecting bodily autonomy while allowing society to function normally. It establishes that:
1. Context determines acceptability
The same touch might be battery in one setting but acceptable in another. Security personnel don't get special exemption from battery law, but their legitimate purpose is part of the context.
2. Intention isn't about hostility
What matters isn't whether the toucher was angry, but whether they intended the touching and whether it exceeded social bounds.
3. Minor touches for communication are generally OK
Getting someone's attention through minimal shoulder contact remains acceptable, even in tense situations.
4. Factual findings matter
The difference between "placing a hand" and "grabbing and spinning" can determine the entire case.
The case reminds us that while the law fiercely protects our right not to be touched, it also recognises we can't live in bubbles. The challenge for courts is finding where normal social interaction ends and battery begins - a line that shifts with context, relationship, and purpose.