Spedding v Nobles

Case [2007] NSWCA 29

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: SPEDDING v NOBLES; SPEDDING v McNALLY [2007] NSWCA 29
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 8 February 2007
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
26 February 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; McColl JA at 2; Basten JA at 3
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE – duty of care – whether licensee of hotel had a duty to protect patrons from criminal assault by third parties – power and obligation to control provided by Liquor Act 1982 (NSW), ss 2A, 103(1), 103(3A) and 125 - NEGLIGENCE – breach – whether licensee had knowledge of an earlier assault and robbery – whether it was open to the trial judge to draw the inference that there was such knowledge – whether risk of attack was reasonably foreseeable.
LEGISLATION CITED: Liquor Act 1982 (NSW), ss 2A, 103, 125
CASES CITED: Chordas v Bryant (Wellington) Pty Ltd (1988) 20 FCR 91 (FC of FCA)
Club Italia (Geelong) Inc v Ritchie (2001) 3 VR 447 (VSCA)
McNally v Spedding; Nobles v Spedding [2005] NSWCA 400
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254
Oxlade v Gosbridge Pty Ltd (unrep, NSWCA, 18 December 1998)
Proprietors of Strata Plan 17226 v Drakulic (2002) 55 NSWLR 659
South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd v Cole (2002) 55 NSWLR 113
Spedding v McNally; Spedding v Nobles [2005] HCA Trans 367
TAB Limited v Atlis [2004] NSWCA 322
PARTIES: Douglas Spedding – Appellant (40501/06 and 40503/06)
Nicole Yvonne Nobles – Respondent (40501/06)
Belinda McNally – Respondent (40503/06)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40501/06; CA 40503/06
COUNSEL: A.M. Colefax SC/P. Newton – Appellant
C.T. Barry QC/C.E. Chrysostomou – Nobles
P.A. Beale/S.C. Sloane - McNally
SOLICITORS: Colin Biggers & Paisley – Appellant
Pitcher Walton & Co – Nobles
Stuart J McDonald & Associates – McNally
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 10455/01; DC 10456/01
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Neilson DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 19 July 2006
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: McNally v Spedding; Nobles v Spedding [2006] NSWDC 113



                          CA 40501/06
                          CA 40503/06
                          DC 10456/01
                          DC 10455/01

                          BEAZLEY JA
                          McCOLL JA
                          BASTEN JA

                          26 February 2007
SPEDDING v NOBLES; SPEDDING v McNALLY

Mr Spedding, the licensee of the Bald Faced Stag Hotel, appealed against a decision of the District Court which found him liable in negligence for injuries caused to Ms Nobles and Ms McNally as a result of a fracas at the hotel on 18 October 1998.

Ms McNally had been assaulted and robbed of her watch just outside the hotel by a patron and sought assistance from one of the hotel’s employee, Mr Spears. He declined to help and Ms Nobles and Ms McNally suffered injuries in the fracas which took place when they sought to retrieve the watch.

The issues for determination by the Court of Appeal were:

(i) whether the Appellant owned a duty of care to…

Continue reading Spedding v Nobles

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Spedding v Nobles [2007] NSWCA 29
Case
[2007] NSWCA 29
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Spedding, sought to recover damages for injuries sustained during a criminal assault by a third party at a hotel licensed by the respondent, Nobles. The dispute concerned whether the hotel licensee owed a duty of care to protect its patrons from such assaults. The matter was heard on appeal in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the licensee owed a duty of care to the patron to protect them from criminal assault by third parties, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court considered whether the powers and obligations conferred upon a hotel licensee by the *Liquor Act 1982* (NSW) created such a duty. Further, the court had to determine if the licensee had knowledge of a prior assault and robbery, and whether it was open to the trial judge to infer such knowledge, thereby establishing foreseeability of the risk of attack.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's finding that the licensee did owe a duty of care to the patron. This duty arose from the licensee's control over the premises and the statutory obligations imposed by the *Liquor Act 1982* (NSW), which included a responsibility to ensure the safety of patrons. The court found that the evidence supported the inference that the licensee had knowledge of a previous assault and robbery, making the risk of a similar attack reasonably foreseeable. Consequently, the licensee's failure to take adequate steps to prevent the assault constituted a breach of that duty.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.