Coca-Cola Amatil (NSW) Pty Ltd v Pareezer

Coca-Cola Amatil (NSW) Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment of Hulme J that found the appellant liable for personal injuries sustained by the respondent, Mr. Pareezer. Mr. Pareezer, a contractor engaged to deliver products to the appellant's vending machines, was shot during a robbery while performing his duties. The dispute centred on whether the appellant owed Mr. Pareezer a duty of care to protect him from such violence.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether a special relationship existed between Coca-Cola Amatil and Mr. Pareezer that imposed a duty to take reasonable steps to protect him from the criminal acts of a third party. Further, the court had to consider whether, assuming such a duty existed, the appellant had breached it by failing to implement a practicable and reasonable alternative system for product delivery, and whether any such breach had caused Mr. Pareezer's injuries, particularly given the irrational nature of the gunman.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that while a duty of care could arise in certain circumstances to protect against foreseeable risks of harm, the specific facts did not establish a special relationship that extended to protecting contractors from the unpredictable violence of a third-party criminal. The court found that the proposed alternative systems of delivery were not practicable or reasonable in the circumstances, and crucially, that even if they had been implemented, they would not have prevented the injury caused by an irrational gunman. Therefore, the court concluded that the appellant had not breached any duty of care owed to Mr. Pareezer, nor had any breach caused his injuries.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in relation to the first three respondents, and the orders of Hulme J in their favour were set aside, with the proceedings dismissed. The first, second, and third respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, with a provision for a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act. The appeal against the fourth and fifth respondents was dismissed with costs.