Ryan v Dearden

Case [2023] QCA 20

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ryan & Anor v Dearden & Anor [2023] QCA 20

PARTIES:

TERRENCE BERNARD RYAN
(first appellant)
NICOLE THERESE RYAN
(second appellant)
v
CHARLES OSWALD DEARDEN
(first respondent)
ROBERT ANDREW TAYLOR
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7428 of 2022
SC No 366 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Rockhampton – [2022] QSC 111 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 November 2022

JUDGES:

Mullins P and McMurdo and Flanagan JJA

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   The judgment for the first respondent against the appellants is set aside.

3.   The first respondent’s claim is dismissed.

4.   The order for costs made in the Trial Division against the appellants is set aside.

5.   The first respondent pay to the appellants their costs of the proceeding in the Trial Division and of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY – STANDARD OF CARE AT COMMON LAW GENERALLY AND BREACH THEREOF – OTHER PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellants hosted a party on their property – where the first and second respondent were guests at the party – where the first respondent suffered severe burns when the second respondent deliberately applied a flame from a cigarette lighter to fuel which he had poured on to the first respondent’s clothing – where the fuel had been brought to the property by the appellants earlier on the same night – where the appellants, as occupiers, owed a duty of care to the party guests – where the general rule provides that an occupier is under no duty of controlling another man to prevent his doing damage to a third – where one exception to the general rule arises where the defendant has created a special danger – whether, by bringing the fuel to the property, the appellants created a special danger giving rise to an exception to the general rule – whether the scope of the duty extended so far as to oblige the appellants to take such steps as were necessary to prevent the second respondent deliberately harming another guest by setting fire to his clothing

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48, cited
Ashrafi Persian Trading Co Pty Ltd v Ashrafinia [2001] NSWCA 243, cited
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479; [1987] HCA 7, cited
D v C [1998] NSWCA 67, cited
Environment Agency (formerly National Rivers Authority) v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd [1999] 2 AC 22; [1998] UKHL 5, applied
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004; [1970] UKHL 2, considered
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254; [2000] HCA 61, applied
Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256; [1945] HCA 27, applied
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241, approved

COUNSEL:

A…

Continue reading Ryan v Dearden

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ryan v Dearden [2023] QCA 20
Case
[2023] QCA 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellants hosted a party at their property, during which the first and second respondents were guests. The first respondent sustained severe burns when the second respondent used a cigarette lighter to ignite fuel that had been poured onto the first respondent’s clothing. The fuel had been brought to the property by the appellants earlier that night. The first respondent subsequently initiated proceedings against the appellants, seeking damages for the injuries suffered. The primary judge found the appellants liable for the first respondent’s injuries and awarded damages. The appellants appealed against the primary judge’s decision.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellants, as occupiers of the property, owed a duty of care to the party guests and whether this duty extended to preventing the second respondent from deliberately setting fire to the first respondent’s clothing. The court considered whether the appellants had created a special danger by bringing the fuel to the property, which could have given rise to an exception to the general rule that an occupier is not under a duty to control the actions of another person to prevent them from causing harm to a third party.

The court found that the appellants did owe a duty of care to the party guests but that this duty did not extend to taking steps to prevent the second respondent from deliberately harming the first respondent. The court held that the appellants had not created a special danger by bringing the fuel to the property, and therefore, the general rule applied. The court concluded that the primary judge had erred in finding the appellants liable for the injuries suffered by the first respondent. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment for the first respondent against the appellants was set aside. The first respondent’s claim was dismissed, and the order for costs made in the Trial Division against the appellants was set aside. The first respondent was ordered to pay the appellants their costs of the proceeding in the Trial Division and of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The judgment for the first respondent against the appellants is set aside.

3. The first respondent’s claim is dismissed.

4. The order for costs made in the Trial Division against the appellants is set aside.

5. The first respondent pay to the appellants their costs of the proceeding in the Trial Division and of the appeal.

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.