New South Wales
Court of Appeal
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Gittani Stone Pty Ltd v Pavkovic 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.
Details
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 355
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Gittani Stone Pty Ltd appealed a decision of the District Court of New South Wales concerning a claim in negligence brought by the respondent, Mr Pavkovic. Mr Pavkovic had been injured by being shot by a co-employee after he had left the employer's premises. The injury occurred over 18 months after an earlier assault by the same co-employee on Mr Pavkovic at the workplace, and following other instances of unreasonable conduct by that co-employee.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Gittani Stone Pty Ltd had breached its duty of care to Mr Pavkovic by failing to dismiss the offending employee or take other appropriate action, and whether any such breach had caused Mr Pavkovic's injury, or if the injury was too remote.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Hodgson JA, Ipp JA, and McColl JA, dismissed the appeal. The reasoning focused on the employer's duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to its employees. The court considered the employer's knowledge of the offending employee's prior violent conduct and the potential for future harm. The court found that the employer had breached its duty of care by failing to adequately address the risk posed by the offending employee, and that this breach had caused the injury sustained by Mr Pavkovic. The court determined that the injury was not too remote a consequence of the employer's negligence.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Gittani Stone Pty Ltd had breached its duty of care to Mr Pavkovic by failing to dismiss the offending employee or take other appropriate action, and whether any such breach had caused Mr Pavkovic's injury, or if the injury was too remote.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Hodgson JA, Ipp JA, and McColl JA, dismissed the appeal. The reasoning focused on the employer's duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to its employees. The court considered the employer's knowledge of the offending employee's prior violent conduct and the potential for future harm. The court found that the employer had breached its duty of care by failing to adequately address the risk posed by the offending employee, and that this breach had caused the injury sustained by Mr Pavkovic. The court determined that the injury was not too remote a consequence of the employer's negligence.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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.