New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: TAB Limited v Beaman [2006] NSWCA 345 HEARING DATE(S): 6 and 7 April 2006
JUDGMENT DATE:
8 December 2006JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Bryson JA at 26; Young CJ in Eq at 27 DECISION: Appeal of TAB Ltd and cross-appeal of Dannik Pty Ltd is allowed. Verdict for the appellant and second respondent. Orders for restitution of amount paid to plaintiff. Plaintiff to pay costs. CATCHWORDS: TORTS- Negligence- Duty of care- Scope of duty- Armed robbery at TAB agency operated by franchisee- Employee injured- Whether failure to ensure suitable and safe workplace, system and training- Whether duty extends to protecting employee from criminal acts of third parties- Whether special relationship between franchisee or TAB Ltd and employee- Robbery foreseeable- Capacity to reduce risk considerably- Causation- "But for" the protective measures that may have been actioned, the robbery could still have taken place- Plaintiff fails on causation. LEGISLATION CITED: District Court Rules, Pt 17 r10 (now Uniform Civil Procedure Rule r 36.17)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 75A(10)
Workers Compensation Act 1987, s 151ZCASES CITED: Ashrafi Persian Trading Co Pty Ltd v Ashrafinia [2002] Aust Torts Rep 81-636
Coca Cola Amatil (NSW) Pty Ltd v Pareezer [2006] NSWCA 45
English v Rogers [2005] NSWCA 327
Liftronic Pty Ltd v Unver (2001) 75 ALJR 867
March v Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Proprietors Strata Plan 17226 v Drakulic (2002) 55 NSWLR 659
Speirs v Caledonian Collieries Ltd (1957) 57 SR (NSW) 483
State of New South Wales v Kennelly (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 472
Timberland Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Bundy [2005] NSWCA 419
WD & HO Wills (Australia) Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1998) 43 NSWLR 338
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40PARTIES: TAB Limited (Appellant/Second Cross Respondent)
Colleen Jean Beaman (First Respondent/First Cross Respondent)
Dannik Pty Ltd t/as Woy Woy TAB (Second Respondent/Cross Appellant)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40168/05 COUNSEL: P Deakin QC and R E Quickenden (Appellant/Second Cross Respondent)
R S McIlwaine SC and G P Edwards (First Respondent/First Cross Respondent)
A Sullivan QC and G Parker (Second Respondent/Cross Appellant)SOLICITORS: Curwood & Partners (Appellant/Second Cross Respondent)
Peninsula Law (First Respondent/First Cross Respondent)
Church & Grace (Second Respondent/Cross Appellant)LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 140/01 (Gosford) LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: J R Nield DCJ LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 16/7/04 as supplemented by decisions of 24/11/04 and 18/2/05 LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Beaman v Dannik Pty Ltd t/as Woy Woy TAB & Anor
40168/05
Friday 8 December 2006GILES JA
BRYSON JA
YOUNG CJ in EQ
TAB LIMITED v BEAMAN
Judgment
1 GILES JA: In the reasons of Young CJ in Eq, which I have had the advantage of reading in draft, his Honour holds that a duty of…
Continue reading TAB Ltd v Beaman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- TAB Ltd v Beaman [2006] NSWCA 345
- Case
- [2006] NSWCA 345
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
TAB Ltd and Dannik Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment in favour of the respondent, Mr. Beaman, who had suffered injury during an armed robbery at a TAB agency operated by Dannik Pty Ltd as a franchisee of TAB Ltd. The dispute concerned whether the appellants owed Mr. Beaman, an employee of the franchisee, a duty of care to protect him from criminal acts of third parties.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether TAB Ltd and Dannik Pty Ltd owed Mr. Beaman a duty of care to ensure a suitable and safe workplace, including adequate systems and training, and whether this duty extended to protecting him from the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. The court also considered whether a special relationship existed between the appellants and Mr. Beaman that would impose such a duty, and crucially, whether any breach of duty had caused Mr. Beaman's injuries.
The Court of Appeal found that while the robbery was foreseeable and the appellants had the capacity to reduce the risk of harm, the plaintiff failed to establish causation. The court reasoned that even if protective measures had been implemented, the robbery could still have occurred, meaning the failure to implement those measures was not a "but for" cause of the injury. Consequently, the appeal by TAB Ltd and the cross-appeal by Dannik Pty Ltd were allowed, the verdict in favour of Mr. Beaman was set aside, and orders were made for the restitution of amounts paid to the plaintiff, with Mr. Beaman ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether TAB Ltd and Dannik Pty Ltd owed Mr. Beaman a duty of care to ensure a suitable and safe workplace, including adequate systems and training, and whether this duty extended to protecting him from the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. The court also considered whether a special relationship existed between the appellants and Mr. Beaman that would impose such a duty, and crucially, whether any breach of duty had caused Mr. Beaman's injuries.
The Court of Appeal found that while the robbery was foreseeable and the appellants had the capacity to reduce the risk of harm, the plaintiff failed to establish causation. The court reasoned that even if protective measures had been implemented, the robbery could still have occurred, meaning the failure to implement those measures was not a "but for" cause of the injury. Consequently, the appeal by TAB Ltd and the cross-appeal by Dannik Pty Ltd were allowed, the verdict in favour of Mr. Beaman was set aside, and orders were made for the restitution of amounts paid to the plaintiff, with Mr. Beaman ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal of TAB Ltd and cross-appeal of Dannik Pty Ltd is allowed. Verdict for the appellant and second respondent. Orders for restitution of amount paid to plaintiff. Plaintiff to pay 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.