Reid v Target Australia Pty Ltd

The appeal in *Reid v Target Australia Pty Ltd* concerned a claim brought by the appellant against the respondent. The appellant alleged negligence, arguing that the respondent owed a duty of care to monitor an area outside its leased premises for persons carrying beverages, and that a failure to do so caused the appellant's injuries. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in failing to draw certain inferences against the respondent, specifically *Jones v Dunkel* inferences, given the absence of oral evidence from the respondent. Additionally, the court considered whether other inferences should have been drawn in light of this lack of oral evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the primary judge's decision. The court reasoned that the *Jones v Dunkel* inferences, which allow an adverse inference to be drawn from a party's failure to call evidence that would have been available to them, were not applicable or necessary in this instance. The court concluded that the primary judge had properly considered all the evidence before her and had not made any errors in drawing inferences or failing to draw them.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.