Roberts v Westpac Banking Corporation

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Roberts v Westpac Banking Corporation

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 397

Hearing Dates:

20-24 April, 27-31 July, 7-9 September 2015

DecisionDate:

7 December 2015

Before:

Ashford AJ

Decision:

Verdict and judgment for the defendant

Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs subject to any variation application by the defendant being made by 17 December 2015

Catchwords:

NEGLIGENCE -  Duty of care - Occupier of premises - Whether duty of care exists where bank has no control over an offender or his actions – Whether duty of care of occupier extends to taking steps to minimise likely harm.

Legislation Cited:

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 42,43,44,45,46 and 168

Cases Cited:

Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254

Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; 234 CLR 330

Lesandu Blacktown Pty Ltd v Gonzalez [2013] NSWCA 8

Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562

Parties:

Gary Nigel Roberts (Plaintiff)

Westpac Banking Corporation (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr D Campbell SC with Mr A Muller (Plaintiff)

Mr D Higgs SC with Mr E Pike (Defendant)

Solicitors

Slater and Gordon Lawyers (Plaintiff)

Wotton + Kearney Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s):

SC 27 of 2013

Ashford AJ:

1. By further amended statement of claim filed (with leave) on 31 July 2013 the plaintiff claims damages of the defendant as a result of a claimed major depressive episode and chronic post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of being a customer in the defendant's premises at Fyshwick in the ACT on 1 February 2010, when an armed hold-up took place.

1. The plaintiff alleges that whilst standing at the counter in those premises and in the course of being served by a teller he was approached from behind by a male person, (‘the offender’), holding a gun.  The offender asked the teller to put money in his bag.  The offender repeatedly threatened to kill the plaintiff.  An employee of the defendant activated security screens at the counter of the premises and the offender discharged the gun. The plaintiff believed he was going to die. 

1. The plaintiff claims the acts or omissions which constituted negligence on the part of the defendant were as follows:

1.1   Failing to take all reasonable precautions for the safety of the plaintiff;

1.2Responding to the offender in a manner that materially increased the risk of injury to the plaintiff;

1.3   Failing to activate the security screens in a timely manner;

1.4Allowing the threat posed by the offender to escalate in a manner that materially increased the risk of injury to the customers of the defendant, including the plaintiff;

1.5   Failing to adhere to the defendant's own policy for the management of hold‑ups;

1.6 Failing to undertake any or adequate identification or assessment of the risk to the plaintiff's health associated with his attendance at the premises;

1.7   Failing to implement risk control strategies to minimise the risk of injury to the plaintiff;

1.8   Activating the security…