Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Tat

Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd was the appellant in an appeal against a judgment in favour of the respondent, Tat, who brought an action in negligence. Tat was employed by Inghams and was attacked by a third party in the appellant’s car park. The appeal challenged the primary judge’s findings that the risk of third-party violence was reasonably foreseeable, that the appellant breached its duty of care, and that this breach caused Tat’s injury.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding the risk of third-party violence was reasonably foreseeable, whether the primary judge erred in finding the appellant breached its duty of care, and whether the primary judge erred in inferring that a different course of events would have occurred had reasonable steps been taken to give workers security awareness training. The court needed to consider whether the primary judge’s findings involved the application of hindsight and whether the primary judge failed to provide adequate reasons.

The court found that the primary judge’s conclusions concerning the events that would have occurred had reasonable steps been taken to give workers security awareness training were not supported by the evidence. The court held that the evidence did not give rise to a reasonable and definite inference in favour of the conclusions that at least one worker would have reported Brain to security, that the security guard would have found Brain, that the guard would have required Brain to leave the car park, and that Brain would have complied and not returned in time to injure Tat. The court noted that the degree of apprehension experienced by the workers varied, and it was speculative to conclude that security awareness training would have changed the nature of their perception of Brain. Therefore, the court found that the primary judge erred in inferring that a different course of events would have occurred.

ORDERS:
1. The applicant is granted leave to appeal.
2. The appeal is allowed.
3. The judgment of the primary judge is set aside and in lieu thereof it is ordered that judgment is entered for the applicant on the respondent’s claim.
4. The respondent must pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding below, and of the application for leave to appeal.