Gould v Mosman Returned Servicemen's Club Ltd

Case [2010] FCA 849

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gould v Mosman Returned Servicemen’s Club Ltd [2010] FCA 849

Citation: Gould v Mosman Returned Servicemen’s Club Ltd [2010] FCA 849
Appeal from: Gould, in the matter of Mosman Returned Servicemen’s Club Limited [2009] FCA 1592
Parties: STEPHEN GEORGE GOULD v MOSMAN RETURNED SERVICEMEN’S CLUB LTD
File number(s): NSD 48 of 2010
Judge: EMMETT J
Date of judgment: 21 July 2010
Date of hearing: 21 July 2010
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 4
Counsel for the Appellant: No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent: Piggott Stinson

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 48 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN GEORGE GOULD
Appellant
AND: MOSMAN RETURNED SERVICEMEN’S CLUB LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 JULY 2010

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 48 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN GEORGE GOULD
Appellant

AND: MOSMAN RETURNED SERVICEMEN’S CLUB LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

21 JULY 2010

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This matter is listed for callover for the November sittings, and is an appeal from orders made by Lindgren J on 15 December 2009.  There was a callover on 3 February 2010. 

  2. The appellant did not attend the callover on that day and an order was made dismissing the appeal.  The appellant subsequently filed a motion seeking leave to have the appeal reinstated and, on 27 April 2010, orders were made setting aside the orders made on 3 February 2010 and referring the matter to the appeals unit for the next Full Court callover. 

  3. The appellant was notified of the callover today by letter of 28 June 2010.  When the matter was called, there was no appearance for either party. 

  4. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the proceeding be dismissed.  I order that the appeal be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.


Associate:

Dated:        10 August 2010

Details
AGLC
Gould v Mosman Returned Servicemen's Club Ltd [2010] FCA 849
Case
[2010] FCA 849
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Gould, the appellant, and Mosman Returned Servicemen's Club Ltd, the respondent. Gould had lodged a complaint about an incident at the respondent's premises, leading to an unsuccessful claim for damages. The dispute reached the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The central legal issue revolved around whether the respondent owed a duty of care to Gould, who was injured on the premises, and whether this duty was breached. The court was also required to consider the applicability of statutory provisions and common law principles in assessing the respondent's liability.

In its reasoning, the court examined the elements necessary to establish a duty of care, focusing on the foreseeability of harm and the relationship between the parties. The court held that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to Gould under the circumstances presented. It was determined that the respondent's actions did not constitute a breach of any statutory obligations, and the common law principles did not impose a duty in this instance. The court further clarified that the statutory provisions governing such incidents did not extend to create a duty of care in this context. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision that the respondent was not liable for the injuries sustained by Gould.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal brought by Gould against the Mosman Returned Servicemen's Club Ltd. This decision upheld the lower court's ruling that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to Gould, and thus the respondent was not liable for the injuries sustained. The judgment reinforces the principles governing duty of care in premises liability cases and the limited scope of statutory obligations in this context.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

Note:

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.