Ian Douglas Bainbridge v Edward James and Sylvia JOCATINE (Trading As James Leigh Promotions)
[2013] HCASL 170
IAN DOUGLAS BAINBRIDGE
v
EDWARD JAMES AND SYLVIA JOCATINE (TRADING AS JAMES LEIGH PROMOTIONS) & ANOR
[2013] HCASL 170
M17/2013
In 2007, the applicant was employed by the first respondents as a shopping centre Father Christmas. The second respondent, Liuzag Custodian Pty Ltd, owned the shopping centre. After completing work for the day, and when walking to a place in the shopping centre where he could change his clothes, the applicant was assaulted and injured.
The applicant brought proceedings in the County Court of Victoria claiming damages for personal injury. He alleged that the first respondents owed him a duty of care to provide a safe place and a safe system of work, and that they had breached that duty. He further alleged that the second respondent owed him a duty to protect him from the reasonably foreseeable risk of criminal behaviour by third parties, and that it had breached that duty.
At first instance, Judge Smith gave judgment for the applicant for $80,000 (less compensation payments received) against the first respondents and gave judgment for the second respondent. On appeal and cross‑appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, that Court (Warren CJ, Harper JA and Kyrou AJA) dismissed the applicant's appeal, allowed the first respondents' cross‑appeal, set aside the judgment in favour of the applicant against the first respondents and ordered that there be judgment for the first respondents against the applicant.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal. No disputed question of principle would fall for consideration if special leave to appeal were to be granted.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.
K.M. Hayne
9 October 2013S.M. Crennan
0
0