Graham Hadaway v Cregan Hotel Management Pty Ltd
[2012] HCASL 79
GRAHAM HADAWAY
v
CREGAN HOTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 79
S385/2011
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Allsop P and Giles and Basten JJA) allowing the respondents' appeal against orders of a judge of the District Court of New South Wales (Levy DCJ). At first instance the respondents had been found liable to the applicant in negligence.
The first respondent was the owner, and the second respondent the licensee and manager, of a hotel in Coffs Harbour.
On 17 September 2004, the applicant, who had been drinking at the hotel, was involved in an altercation with another hotel patron, there being pre‑existing hostility between them. After breaking up the altercation, hotel staff separated the two men. Around half an hour later, there was a second, verbal, altercation between the applicant and the other patron. Hotel staff again separated the two men, and required them to remain in separate areas of the hotel. Some hours later, the applicant left the hotel. When he was approximately 200 metres from the hotel, the applicant was assaulted by the other patron and suffered serious injuries.
On 3 September 2010, Levy DCJ found the other patron liable to the applicant for assault and battery, and found the respondents liable to the applicant in negligence. Levy DCJ assessed the damages for negligence at $922,394. The respondents appealed in relation to liability, among other things.
On 8 November 2011, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The members of the Court of Appeal held that the key factual finding relied upon by Levy DCJ – that the applicant had been involuntarily ejected from the hotel – was not supported by the evidence. Their Honours rejected the applicant's contention that the hotel had breached its duty of care to the applicant by separating the applicant and the other patron within the hotel, instead of ejecting the other patron at the time of the second altercation.
This application raises no question of principle of general public importance which would warrant consideration by this Court, and the interests of the proper administration of justice are not engaged. Several recent decisions of this Court have addressed the scope of a publican's duty to his or her patrons[1], and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal.
[1]See Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48; CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board (2009) 239 CLR 390; [2009] HCA 47; Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 469; [2004] HCA 29.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.
8 K.M. Hayne
9 10 May 2012
10 S.M. Crennan
5
0