Perkins v Redmond Company Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 87 min read
CITATION: Perkins v Redmond Company Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 147
HEARING DATE(S): 14-18, 28-31 May, 1 June 2007
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
13 July 2007
JURISDICTION: Civil
JUDGMENT OF: Rein SC DCJ
DECISION: See [186].
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - Altercation between two patrons on licensed premises resulting in injury to plaintiff - Whether licensee failed to provide adequate security at the premises - Content of duty of licensee - Relevance of non-compliance with conditions imposed on Place of Public Entertainment licence - Whether duty of care delegated to security company - Causation - Contributory negligence - Assessment of damages
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 5B, 5C, 5D
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, s 5
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965, s 9
Liquor Act 1982, s 125
CASES CITED: Abela v Giew [1965] NSWR 913; (1965) 65 SR (NSW) 485
Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232; [1998] HCA 55
Chordas v Bryant (Wellington) Pty Ltd (1988) 20 FCR 91
Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 469; [2004] HCA 29
Collingwood Hotel Pty Ltd v O'Reilly [2007] NSWCA 155
Hampton Court Ltd v Crooks (1957) 97 CLR 367
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 214 CLR 552; 198 ALR 137; [2003] HCA 34
Kirby v Sanderson Motors Pty Ltd (2002) 54 NSWLR 135; [2002] NSWCA 44
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery (2007) 233 ALR 200; [2007] HCA 6
Manly Council v Byrne [2004] NSWCA 123
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1; [1995] HCA 5
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254; [2000] HCA 61
Newcastle Entertainment Security Pty Ltd v Simpson (1999) Aust Torts Reports 81-528; [1999] NSWCA 351
Oxlade v Gosbridge Pty Ltd (NSWCA, 18/12/1998, unreported, BC9807725)
Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191
Proprietors of Strata Plan 17226 v Drakulic (2002) 55 NSWLR 659; [2002] NSWCA 381
Scalise v Bezzina [2003] NSWCA 362
Spedding v Nobles [2007] NSWCA 29
Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd (2006) 227 ALR 46; [2006] HCA 19
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422; 221 ALR 711; [2005] HCA 62
Wagstaff v Haslam [2007] NSWCA 28
Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
PARTIES: Andrew Stuart Perkins (Plaintiff)
Redmond Company Pty Limited (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S): 4733/05
COUNSEL: Mr J Anderson (Plaintiff)
Mr M Joseph SC (Defendant)
SOLICITORS: Koffels (Plaintiff)
McCabe Terrill Lawyers Pty Limited (Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1 The defendant, for whom Mr M Joseph SC appears, is the licensee and occupant of a licensed hotel known as St Patrick’s Tavern, at 66 King St Sydney (“the tavern”). On Friday 6 August 2004 the plaintiff, for whom Mr J Anderson of counsel appears, was present at the tavern and…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Perkins v Redmond Company Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] NSWDC 147
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Perkins v Redmond Company Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who was injured during an altercation on the licensed premises of the defendant, and the defendant, the licensee of the premises. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury and loss resulting from the altercation. The court had to consider the legal obligations of the licensee regarding security, the extent of the duty of care, and the potential for contributory negligence. The case also examined whether the duty of care could be delegated to a security company and the causation of the injuries.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the licensee had failed to provide adequate security at the premises, the content of the licensee's duty of care, and the relevance of non-compliance with conditions imposed on the Place of Public Entertainment licence. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the duty of care could be delegated to a security company and the extent to which the plaintiff's contributory negligence affected the assessment of damages.

The court found that the licensee had a duty to provide adequate security to prevent harm to patrons. However, the court held that the licensee was not in breach of this duty because the security provided was reasonable under the circumstances. The court also determined that the duty of care could be delegated to a security company, provided that the security company met the required standards. Regarding contributory negligence, the court found that the plaintiff had contributed to the incident but did not bar recovery of damages. The court assessed the damages, taking into account the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff damages for personal injury and loss, reduced by the amount of the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The court directed the parties to reach an agreement on the quantum of damages or for the matter to proceed to a further hearing if an agreement could not be reached.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [186].

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.