Ken Tagg Family Restaurant v Peter Gilroy

Ken Tagg Family Restaurant (the appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales that found it liable for personal injuries sustained by Peter Gilroy (the respondent). The respondent had suffered injuries when he slipped on a wet floor inside the appellant's restaurant.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the extent of the appellant's duty of care to its patrons regarding the maintenance of a safe environment, and whether the appellant's alleged failure to maintain such an environment had caused the respondent's injuries.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles of occupiers' liability and the foreseeability of harm. It found that while a restaurant owner owes a duty of care to patrons to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable injury, the evidence did not establish that the appellant had breached this duty. Specifically, the court determined that the presence of a wet floor, in the circumstances, did not demonstrate a failure by the appellant to take reasonable precautions. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if there had been a breach, it had not been proven that this breach caused the respondent's fall and subsequent injuries.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court, and entered judgment for the defendant appellant.