SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Gibson (a pseudonym) v Askim Pty Ltd ATF the Askim Trust trading as Central Café Group |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 203 |
Hearing Date: | 14 March 2023 – 16 March 2023 |
Decision Date: | 28 June 2024 |
Before: | Baker J |
Decision: | (1) Judgment is entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $65,573.34. (2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs. (3) If either party notifies the Court within 7 days of the making of these orders that a different costs order is sought, order 2 is stayed until further order. |
Catchwords: | CIVIL LAW – NEGLIGENCE – personal injury – plaintiff contracted salmonella poisoning while working as a kitchen hand at the defendant’s café – whether plaintiff demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that she contracted salmonella poisoning from the café – coincidence reasoning - other patrons of the café also contracted same strand of salmonella bacteria - café was found to have committed numerous breaches of the Food Act 2001 (ACT) – whether the risk of the plaintiff contracting salmonella poisoning was foreseeable and not insignificant – whether defendant breached duty of care - defendant failed to provide soap to its employees and failed to properly refrigerate raw meat and chicken – whether the negligent conduct of the defendant was a necessary condition of the harm caused – liability established – damages awarded |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 42, 43, 44, 45, 99 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 98 Food Act 2001 (ACT), ss 22(2), 27, 89 |
Cases Cited: | 5 Boroughs NY Pty Ltd v State of Victoria (No 2) [2022] VSC 494 Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd [1951] 217 ALR 1 CCL Secure Pty Ltd v Berry [2019] FCAFC 81 Cobanov v Josifovski (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 111 Craig v Silverbrook [2013] NSWSC 1687 Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2000] FCA 1084; 174 ALR 97 Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; 214 ALR 349 Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; 148 CLR 658 Fernandez v Tubemakers of Australia Ltd [1975] 2 NSWLR 190 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Gill v Ethicon Sàrl (No 5) [2019] FCA 1905 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2002] HCA 54; 211 CLR 540 Guojin Huang v Jinghong Wei (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 473 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298 Karpik v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) (Initial Trial) [2023] FCA 1280 Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd [2005] HCA 15; 222 CLR 44; Kone Elevators Pty Ltd v Shipton [2021] ACTCA 33 Lewis v Woolworths Limited [2018] ACTSC 200 Matthew Xavier Carton v Rainbow Plumbing and Drainage Pty Limited [2013] ACTSC 267 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Gibson (a pseudonym) v Askim Pty Ltd ATF the Askim and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 203
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the plaintiff had demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that she contracted salmonella poisoning from the café. The court also needed to consider if the risk of the plaintiff contracting salmonella poisoning was foreseeable and not insignificant, and whether the defendant breached its duty of care. The court found that the coincidence of multiple patrons contracting the same strand of salmonella bacteria, along with the café's numerous breaches of the Food Act 2001 (ACT), supported the plaintiff's claim. The court further found that the defendant's failure to provide soap and properly refrigerate raw meat and chicken was a necessary condition for the harm caused.
The court found in favour of the plaintiff, establishing liability on the part of the defendant. The court awarded the plaintiff $65,573.34 in damages. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs. If either party seeks a different costs order within seven days of the making of these orders, the costs order will be stayed until further order.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment is entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $65,573.34.
(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs.
(3) If either party notifies the Court within 7 days of the making of these orders that a different costs order is sought, order 2 is stayed until further order.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.