Legal Research
Cases
T. Wagstaff v Haslam

T. Wagstaff v Haslam

Case [2006] NSWSC 294 21 April 2006

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: T. Wagstaff v Haslam & Anor [2006] NSWSC 294

HEARING DATE(S): 13-15, 20-23 February, 6-7 March 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
21 April 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

DECISION: Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $227,598. Costs reserved

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002
Factories Shops and Industries Act
Liquor Act 1982
Liquor Ordinance 1975 (ACT)

CASES CITED: Abela v Giew (1965) 65 SR (NSW) 485
Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112
Chordas v Bryant (Wellington) Pty Limited (1988) 28 FCR 91
Gee v NWQ Management Pty Limited [2002] NSWCA 77
Lanahmede Pty Limited v Koch [2004] SASC 204
Malec v J.C. Hutton Pty Limited (1990) 169 CLR 638
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Limited v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254
Oxlade v Gosbridge Pty Limited (unreported, NSWCA, 18 December 1998)
The Proprietors of Strata Plan 17226 & Anor v Drakulic (2002) 55 NSWLR 659
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330
Sovar v Henry Lane Pty Limited (1967) 116 CLR 397
Starks v RSM Security Pty Limited (2004) ATP 81-763
TAB Limited v Atlis [2004] NSWCA 322
Wagstaff v Haslam & Anor [2006] NSWSC 295

PARTIES: Teresa Anne Wagstaff (Plaintiff)
Anthony James Haslam (1st Defendant)
D & D Haslam Pty Limited (2nd Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20218/04

COUNSEL: R.W. Seton SC/J. Reimer (Plaintiff)
G. Parker (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: Walsh & Associates (Plaintiff)
Ebsworth & Ebsworth (Defendants)

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 02/13/2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

STUDDERT J

Friday 21 April 2006

20218/04 TERESA ANNE WAGSTAFF v ANTHONY JAMES HASLAM & ANOR
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Teresa Anne Wagstaff is claiming damages from the first defendant, Anthony James Haslam, and from the second defendant, D. & D. Haslam Pty Limited, arising out of events at the Greenhouse Tavern on 3 May 2000. The plaintiff visited the Greenhouse Tavern on the evening of 3 May 2000 to have a drink with her husband after work. The plaintiff’s husband, who also brings a claim against the defendants, became involved in an altercation in the tavern, and was assaulted. It is the plaintiff Teresa Wagstaff’s case that she went to her husband’s aid, and in consequence of what happened suffered injury, both physical and mental.

2 Liability has been strenuously contested, and additionally there has been a very real contest about the nature and extent of any injury the plaintiff suffered.

3 The first defendant has been sued as the licensee of the Greenhouse Tavern and the second defendant has been sued as the occupier of the tavern. The status of the defendants has been admitted for the purposes of these proceedings and also for the proceedings brought by the plaintiff’s husband.

The incident at the tavern

4 The plaintiff and her husband were regular patrons of the Greenhouse Tavern. It was an establishment conveniently located in relation to where the plaintiff and her husband lived. As at May 2000 the plaintiff’s husband was conducting…

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. Wagstaff v Haslam

Details

AGLC: T. Wagstaff v Haslam [2006] NSWSC 294
Case: [2006] NSWSC 294
Decision Date: 21 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Teresa Anne Wagstaff sued Anthony James Haslam and D & D Haslam Pty Limited for damages arising from an incident at the Greenhouse Tavern on 3 May 2000. The plaintiff was seeking damages for injuries suffered in consequence of intervening in an altercation between her husband and another person. The defendants strenuously contested liability as well as the nature and extent of any injury the plaintiff suffered. The court found that the defendants owed the plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care for her safety whilst she remained lawfully on the hotel premises during its trading hours. The court found the defendants liable for the breaches of duty and awarded damages to the plaintiff. The court awarded $95,680 for non-economic loss, $25,716 for past economic loss, $10,000 for future economic loss, and $150,565 for future costs, making a total of $281,969. The court reduced the award by twenty percent pursuant to s 30(3) of the Civil Liability Act, resulting in a final award of $227,971. Costs were reserved.

Orders