t/as MOOSEHEADS BAR & CAFE - [2007] ACTSC 1

MATTHEW BRENDEN KOOK v CAFTOR PTY LTD
t/as MOOSEHEADS BAR & CAFE
[2007] ACTSC 1 (29 January 2007)

NEGLIGENCE – occupiers’ liability – scope of duty to contractual entrant – glass on nightclub dance floor surface – customer suffering hand laceration on glass when falling on dance floor

Wood v Postnet Pty Ltd [2002] ACTSC 48
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
Maclenan v Segar [1917] 2 KB 325
Watson v George (1953) 89 CLR 409
Downunder Rock Cafe Pty Ltd v Roberts [1998] VICSC 101
Morawski v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1988) 14 NSWLR 374
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317

Shoeys Pty Ltd v Allan (1991) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-104

No. SC 427 of 2002

Judge: Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 29 January 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 427 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:MATTHEW BRENDEN KOOK
Plaintiff

AND:CAFTOR PTY LTD t/as MOOSEHEADS BAR & CAFE
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  29 January 2007
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment be entered for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed.

In the early hours of Good Friday, 29 March 2002, the plaintiff and some friends were at Mooseheads, a nightclub in London Circuit, Canberra City, when the plaintiff fell on the dance floor on the upper level of the premises and cut his hand severely on a glass. There is a conflict of evidence as to whether he had the glass in his hand as he fell, or whether the glass was already on the dance floor. He brings this action against the defendant company, which owns and operates the business Mooseheads as a bar and nightclub, and was at all material times the occupier having the care, control and management of the premises.

By agreement, I have heard the evidence in relation to liability only. If the plaintiff were to fail, judgment would be entered for the defendant and that would conclude the matter. If he succeeds, judgment will be entered in his favour for damages to be assessed. The plaintiff’s case is that while he was on the dance floor, dancing (in the sense of shuffling about to the music, but without a partner) he was bumped from behind, lost his footing and fell, his outstretched right hand striking a glass which someone had left on the dance floor, breaking the glass and cutting his hand. His case is supported by his own evidence and that of his three friends.

The case for the defendant is that the plaintiff and at least one of his friends were skylarking: the friend picked the plaintiff up, the plaintiff wrapped his legs around the friend, and the plaintiff then fell to the floor, cutting his hand on his own glass which he was holding at the time. This version is supported by the evidence of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading t/as MOOSEHEADS BAR & CAFE

Details

AGLC: t/as MOOSEHEADS BAR & CAFE [2007] ACTSC 1
Case: [2007] ACTSC 1
Decision Date: 29 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the plaintiff, represented by Mr. G.J.P. Williams, brought an action against the defendant, trading as Mooseheads Bar & Cafe, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that on the night of 20 February 2013, he visited the defendant's premises and became intoxicated. He subsequently fell on the dance floor of the nightclub, causing a laceration to his hand, due to the presence of glass on the floor. The plaintiff claimed damages for the injuries sustained, attributing them to the defendant's negligence in maintaining a safe environment for its customers.

The primary legal issue before the court was the scope of the defendant's duty of care towards the plaintiff, who was a contractual entrant. The court needed to determine whether the defendant had breached its duty by failing to maintain a safe environment on the dance floor, which led to the plaintiff's injuries. The court considered the common law principles of occupiers' liability and whether the defendant, as the occupier, had discharged its duty of care towards the plaintiff.

In delivering the judgment, Justice McCallum found that the defendant was indeed negligent in its duty of care. The court held that the presence of glass on the dance floor constituted a breach of the defendant's duty to maintain a safe environment for its customers. The court also noted that the plaintiff's intoxication did not absolve the defendant of its responsibility to ensure the premises were safe. Consequently, the court found the defendant liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff.

The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for damages to be assessed. The court indicated that it would hear from the parties regarding whether a costs order was sought at this stage of the proceedings and appropriate directions for their future conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff having succeeded in relation to liability, there will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for damages to be assessed. I shall hear the parties as to whether a costs order is sought at this stage of the proceedings, and as to appropriate directions for their future conduct.

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.