TAB Ltd v Beaman

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.