Exemplary Damages Against the State: the Austral v NT Reset

An honest belief that force was lawful will not shield the state from exemplary damages. In Austral, the High Court restored punitive awards against the Northern Territory over the Don Dale CS gas incident, while cutting them from $200,000 to $50,00 per appellant.

Relevant documents:

• The judgment on the High Court's judgments page ([2026] HCA 20, decided 17 June 2026)

• Austral v Northern Territory; Binsaris v Northern Territory; O’Shea v Northern Territory; Webster v Northern Territory [2026] HCA 20

• Binsaris v Northern Territory [2020] HCA 22

Disclaimer: The information provided in the articles in this section are of a general nature and should not be construed as specific advice or relied upon in lieu of appropriate professional advice. Whilst LEAP Legal Software uses commercially reasonably efforts to ensure the information in these articles are up to date at the time of publication, LEAP does not warrant their accuracy, currency or completeness and excludes all loss or damage howsoever arising (including through negligence) in connection with the information contained in these articles.

Following Binsaris v Northern Territory (2020) (Binsaris HCA), which established that gassing the appellants with CS gas (a form of tear gas) at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre was an unlawful battery, these appeals focused purely on the assessment of damages. Specifically, the High Court of Australia (HCA) considered whether exemplary damages were available against the Northern Territory and, if so, in what amount. A 5–2 majority restored the exemplary damages previously set aside by the Court of Appeal but reduced the awards from $200,000 to $50,000 per appellant. Gageler CJ and Steward J dissented.

From Binsaris to Austral: how the case got here

The appellants first sued in battery in LO v Northern Territory (2017), where the trial judge accepted the Territory's statutory authority defence, found the gas "reasonable and necessary", and dismissed the claims. That decision was affirmed in JB v Northern Territory (2019).

The HCA reversed this in Binsaris HCA, ruling the CS fogger was an unauthorised, prohibited weapon under s 6 of the Weapons Control Act 2001 (NT), thereby constituting battery, and remitted the matter for damages. On remitter (Binsaris [2023]), Blokland J awarded general damages ($20,000–$30,000), aggravated damages to three appellants ($15,000–$20,000), and exemplary damages ($200,000 each), while denying pre-judgment interest. The Court of Appeal (NT v Austral [2025]) then struck out the exemplary damages and reinstated interest, prompting the present cross-appeals to the HCA.

Background Facts

On 21 August 2014, detainee Jake Roper caused a severe disturbance at Don Dale. To subdue him, Commissioner Middlebrook authorised an adult prison Immediate Action Team to spray CS gas into the Behaviour Management Unit approximately ten times. The four appellants, Aboriginal youths Austral (16), Binsaris (15), O’Shea (17), and Webster (15), were locked in their cells as non-participating bystanders.

Trapped without warning for up to six-and-a-half minutes, they suffered extreme respiratory distress, to the point where O'Shea and Webster feared they would die. Despite two appellants being asthmatic, no medical status checks were conducted prior to deployment, violating adult protocols. Afterwards, the youths were handcuffed, hosed down face-down, briefly evaluated by a nurse, and transferred to an adult prison.

Issues on Appeal

The appellants argued the Court of Appeal erred by:

1. Failing to execute the HCA’s previous judgment under s 37 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

2. Requiring subjective proof that the officers knew their conduct was unlawful to trigger exemplary damages.

3. Holding that exemplary damages could not be awarded on a direct liability basis.

4. The Territory cross-appealed, contending the $200,000 awards were manifestly excessive and that restoring them justified denying interest on general damages.

What the High Court decided

The HCA allowed the appeals on all grounds. It allowed the Territory's cross-appeal only regarding manifest excess. Exemplary damages were restored but reduced to $50,000 per appellant. The Court of Appeal's 4% interest award on general damages was affirmed.

Ratio of the Majority

1. Execution of Judgment & Finality

Under s 37 of the Judiciary Act, lower courts were bound to execute Binsaris HCA. The trial judge's original finding that the gas was "reasonable and necessary" was tied to a statutory defence assuming legal availability. Once Binsaris HCA declared the gas option criminally prohibited, that finding collapsed. The Court of Appeal erred by resurrecting it to defeat exemplary damages.

2. Exemplary Damages and Belief in Lawfulness

The majority rejected the proposition that exemplary damages strictly require subjective "conscious wrongdoing in contumelious disregard", that is, knowingly acting in insolent disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. An honest belief in lawfulness does not bar an award. The inquiry must cover the whole context: the victims were locked children in state custody, asthmatic protocols were ignored, officers made callous remarks, and the Territory systemically failed to train its staff or provide a fit-for-purpose facility. Exemplary damages were critical to call the Executive to account.

3. Direct Liability by Attribution

The claim rested on direct liability via the attribution of the officers' actions and states of mind to the Territory, rather than true vicarious liability. Because the Territory failed to object to the systemic failure arguments during the remitter hearing, the principle in Coulton v Holcombe did not bar the appellants' reliance on them.

4. Manifest Excess & Global Apportionment

The initial $800,000 global total was manifestly excessive for a non-profit-driven personal tort. For a single course of conduct injuring multiple plaintiffs, the correct approach is to calculate a global punitive sum ($200,000) and apportion it equally ($50,000 each) to maintain proportionality.

5. Interest on General Damages

Compensation and pre-judgment interest are secondary to punitive remedies. A proper award of compensatory interest cannot be reduced or denied by referencing a subsequent award of exemplary damages.

Reasoning of the Dissent

Gageler CJ and Steward J found no errors of principle in the Court of Appeal's ruling. They argued that Binsaris HCA resolved a narrow statutory construction issue regarding the

What Austral means for intentional torts practice

Austral clarifies key frameworks within intentional torts and remedies:

• Transferred Intent/Bystanders: It reaffirms that battery covers bystanders when the defendant acts knowing they will inevitably be impacted; exposure is not accidental if contact is a known certainty.

• Defence Limitations: A factual baseline of "reasonable necessity" cannot anchor a common law defence if the weapon itself is legally prohibited.

• Exemplary Damages Remodelled: Subjective bad faith or knowledge of illegality is not mandatory for punitive awards. Executive misconduct targeting vulnerable individuals in state custody heavily weighs toward punitive intervention, and institutional failures can be attributed directly to the state.

• Multiple Plaintiffs: Where a singular course of state misconduct harms multiple plaintiffs, courts can fix a global sum and apportion it equally to preserve proportionality and avoid crushing, cumulative penalties.

Key takeaways

The HCA confirmed that deploying an unauthorised, prohibited weapon against detained children constitutes an actionable battery justifying proportionate exemplary damages. It serves as a stark reminder that an executive's mistaken belief in lawfulness will not insulate the state from direct punitive liability when fundamental duties of care are systemically ignored.