Kingsgrove RSL v Spasevski

CITATION:	Kingsgrove RSL v Spasevski [2002] NSWCA 342
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40192/02
HEARING DATE(S):	2 September 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:	12 December 2002
PARTIES :	Kingsgrove RSL Club Ltd v Gail Spasevski
JUDGMENT OF:	Handley JA at 1; Sheller JA at 44; Hodgson JA at 45

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	DC 1542/00
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Sorby DCJ

COUNSEL:	Appellant - J D Hislop QC/J C Chapman Respondent - Paul Webb QC/P R Sternberg
SOLICITORS:	Appellant - McCulloch & Buggy Respondent - Angelovski & Associates
CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - breach of duty - causation - employer - employee
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
CASES CITED:	Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 265 Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408, 420 Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232, 238-9, 247, 257 Naxakis v West General Hospital (1999) 197 CLR 269, 278-9 Rosenburg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434, 452, 460-1 Warren v Coombs (1979) 142 CLR 531 Leotta v Public Transport Commission of NSW (1976) 50 ALJR 666 Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491, 497 McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 9, 12 Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074, 1090-1 Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra 505 [93 ER 664] Houghton v Immer (No 155) Pty Ltd (1997) 44 NSWLR 46, 49
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed with costs

40192/02
DC 1542/00
HANDLEY JA
SHELLER JA
HODGSON JA


12 December 2002

KINGSGROVE RSL CLUB LIMITED v GAIL SPASEVSKI

NEGLIGENCE – breach of duty – causation – employer – employee

The respondent was employed by the appellant as a bar stewardess in its bowling clubhouse. Two armed men robbed the clubhouse while she was on duty. She suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and had not worked since. The respondent sued the appellant for breach of its duty of care as an employer. There had been two earlier robberies at the clubhouse. The trial Judge awarded her $350,152.60.

The appellant conceded that it owed a duty of care and that an armed robbery was reasonably foreseeable but challenged the findings of breach of duty and causation.

The appellant contended that even if there was an implicit finding of causation the trial Judge had failed to give adequate reasons and there should be a new trial. It also submitted that there was no evidence that anything the club could have done would have prevented the third robbery.

HELD: After the second robbery the club’s duty to its employees was to take reasonable steps to protect them from being injured as a result of a further robbery. As nothing was done to upgrade security the club was in breach of that duty and the Judge’s implicit finding on causation was open on the evidence. There was no need to order a new trial for lack of reasons where no question of credibility arose…