Calin v The Greater Union Organisation Pty Limited

The case of *Calin v The Greater Union Organisation Pty Limited* concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Ms. Calin, had slipped and fallen in a darkened cinema owned by the respondent, The Greater Union Organisation Pty Limited, after purchasing a ticket to enter. The applicant contended that she was a contractual entrant and therefore owed a higher duty of care than that owed to a mere licensee or invitee.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the lower courts had applied the correct standard of care to the applicant, who was a contractual entrant. Specifically, the applicant argued that the trial judge and the Court of Appeal had applied the general standard of care for negligence, as established in *Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna*, rather than the more stringent implied warranty of safety owed to a contractual entrant. This warranty, derived from cases such as *Maclenan v Segar*, posits that premises must be as safe for the contemplated purpose as reasonable care and skill can make them.

The applicant's submission was that the lower courts erred by not recognising and applying this higher standard of care appropriate for a contractual entrant. While the applicant was acknowledged as a lawful entrant who had paid for her ticket, the way the duty of care was described and applied in the judgments below was, in the applicant's submission, inconsistent with the implied warranty of safety. The applicant sought special leave to appeal on the basis that these points of law, though not formally raised as grounds of appeal in the lower courts, were of sufficient importance to warrant consideration by the High Court.