CITATION: Hadaway v Robinson & Ors [2010] NSWDC 188 HEARING DATE(S): 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 May, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 June, 28 July, 7 and 20 August 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
3 September 2010JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Levy SC DCJ DECISION: 1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,161,368;
2. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $922,394;
3. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant in the sum of $922,394;
4. Verdict and judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant in the sum of $645,675;
5. The defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;
6. The cross-defendant is to pay the costs of the cross-claimants on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;
7. The exhibits may be returned;
8. Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.CATCHWORDS: TORTS – assault and battery – plaintiff assaulted on leaving licensed premises – whether assailant liable in damages for assault and battery – whether hotel owner and licensee are liable for antecedent breach of duty of care owed to plaintiff in respect of events occurring within licensed premises prior to assault and battery - DAMAGES – assessment of multiple heads of compensatory damages – entitlement of plaintiff to award of exemplary and aggravated damages – dual damages assessments – assessment of common law damages and assessment of damages under Civil Liability Act 2002 – jurisdiction for damages award – extended jurisdiction conferred by s 51(4) of District Court Act 1973. LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002
District Court Act 1973
Employees Liability Act 1991CASES CITED: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48
Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130
Adelaide Stevedoring Co. Ltd v Forst [1940] HCA 45;(1940) 64 CLR 538
CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board [2009] HCA 47
Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd & Anor v Zhang & Anor [2007] HCA 15; (2007) 229 CLR 498
Lamb v Cotogno [1987] HCA 47; (1987) 164 CLR 1
MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic [1991] HCA 3; (1991) 171 CLR 567
March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 50
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254
Portelli v Tabriski Pty Limited & Ors [2009] NSWCA 17
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Refrigerated Roadways Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 263
State of NSW v Ibbett [2005] NSWCA 445
State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133
State of NSW v Riley [2003] NSWCA 208
Sretenovic v Reed [2009] 280
Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 442
Waverley Council v Ferreira [2005] NSWCA 418
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation [1995]…
Continue reading Hadaway v Robinson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hadaway v Robinson [2010] NSWDC 188
- Case
- [2010] NSWDC 188
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hadaway v Robinson involved the plaintiff, Hadaway, who was assaulted and suffered injuries after leaving the premises of the defendant, Robinson, who was the owner and licensee of a licensed hotel. The plaintiff sought damages for the assault and battery, as well as for the hotel's alleged failure to provide adequate security measures that could have prevented the assault. The court was required to determine whether Robinson was liable for the assault and battery, whether the hotel and its licensee were liable for any antecedent breach of duty of care, and the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.
The court held that Robinson was indeed liable for the assault and battery, as he had directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. Furthermore, the court found that the hotel and its licensee were also liable for any antecedent breach of duty of care, as they failed to provide adequate security measures that could have prevented the assault. The court considered various heads of compensatory damages, including general damages, special damages, and loss of earnings, and awarded the plaintiff a substantial sum. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to exemplary and aggravated damages due to the nature of the assault. The court assessed damages under both common law and the Civil Liability Act 2002, taking into account the jurisdictional limits of the District Court under the District Court Act 1973.
The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff significant damages against each of the defendants, reflecting the severity of the assault and the defendants' liability. The court also awarded damages to the cross-claimants against the cross-defendant, further recognising the extent of the harm caused by the assault. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, and the cross-defendant was ordered to pay the cross-claimants' costs, both on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered. The court granted liberty to apply for further orders if needed and directed that the exhibits be returned.
The court held that Robinson was indeed liable for the assault and battery, as he had directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. Furthermore, the court found that the hotel and its licensee were also liable for any antecedent breach of duty of care, as they failed to provide adequate security measures that could have prevented the assault. The court considered various heads of compensatory damages, including general damages, special damages, and loss of earnings, and awarded the plaintiff a substantial sum. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to exemplary and aggravated damages due to the nature of the assault. The court assessed damages under both common law and the Civil Liability Act 2002, taking into account the jurisdictional limits of the District Court under the District Court Act 1973.
The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff significant damages against each of the defendants, reflecting the severity of the assault and the defendants' liability. The court also awarded damages to the cross-claimants against the cross-defendant, further recognising the extent of the harm caused by the assault. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, and the cross-defendant was ordered to pay the cross-claimants' costs, both on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered. The court granted liberty to apply for further orders if needed and directed that the exhibits be returned.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,161,368;
2. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $922,394;
3. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant in the sum of $922,394;
4. Verdict and judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant in the sum of $645,675;
5. The defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;
6. The cross-defendant is to pay the costs of the cross-claimants on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;
7. The exhibits may be returned;
8. Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.
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.