Legal Research
Cases
Thompson v J-Corp Pty Ltd

Thompson v J-Corp Pty Ltd

Case [2018] WADC 164 30 November 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   THOMPSON -v- J-CORP PTY LTD [2018] WADC 164
CORAM:   BOWDEN DCJ
HEARD:   1-5 & 8 OCTOBER 2016
DELIVERED          :   30 NOVEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3080 of 2016
BETWEEN:   ALEX PAUL THOMPSON
Plaintiff
AND
J-CORP PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Occupiers' liability - Duty of care of principal contract organising activity

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA)
Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA)

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr DM Bruns
Defendant	:	Mr GR Hancy

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Stephen Browne Lawyers
Defendant	:	Greenland Legal Pty Ltd

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009] HCA 48
Anyco Pty Ltd v Kleeman [2008] WASCA 30; (2008) Aust Torts Reports 81-933
Apostolic Church Australia Limited v Dixon [2018] WASCA 146
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 27; (1992) 176 CLR 408
Bowen v Tutte (1990) Aust Torts Rep 81-043
Bryant v Fawdon Pty Ltd (1993) Aust Tort Rep 81–204; (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 930037, 22 January 1993)
CGU Insurance Limited v Coote (by his Next Friend Stephen Desmond Coote) [2018] WASCA 117
Chelini v Northern Territory Port Authority (1976) 12 ALR 519
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; (2005) 79 ALJR 839
Department of Housing and Works v Smith (No 2) [2010] WASCA 25; (2010) 41 WAR 217
Dovuro Pty Limited v Wilkins (2003) 215 CLR 317
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 214 CLR 552
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; (2009) 240 CLR 1
Lyle v Soc [2009] WASCA 3
Lysaght (Australia) Limited [1975] HCA 9; (1975) 132 CLR 201
March v E. & M.H. Stramare Pty Limited [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506
McLachlan v Purchas (Unreported, WADC, 12 February 1998, Library 980038)
McLachlan v Purchas (Unreported, WASCA, 21 December 1998, Library No 980749)
McLean v Tedman [1984] HCA 60; (1984) 155 CLR 306
Medlin v The State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1
Neindorf v Junkovic [2005] HCA 75; (2005) 80 ALJR 341
Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission [1985] HCA 3; (1985) 156 CLR 7
Paul v Rendell (1981) 34 ALR 569
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; (2007) 238 ALR 761
Shire of Manjimup v Cheetham [2010] WASCA 225
State of New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133; (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Proprietary Limited (1986) 160 CLR 16
Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5
The Commissioner of Railways v Ruprecht (1979) 142 CLR 563
Todorovic v Waller [1981] HCA 72; (1981) 150 CLR 402
Town of Port Hedland v Hodder (No 2) [2012] WASCA 212; (2012) 43 WAR 383
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 422

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 Thompson v J-Corp Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Thompson v J-Corp Pty Ltd [2018] WADC 164
Case: [2018] WADC 164
Decision Date: 30 NOVEMBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thompson v J-Corp Pty Ltd dealt with an issue of negligence, specifically regarding the duty of care owed by an occupier of premises, in this instance, J-Corp, to a visitor to the premises, Mr Thompson. The dispute arose when Mr Thompson was injured on the premises of J-Corp, which was an entity that organised contract activities, during an event organised by a third-party contractor. Mr Thompson sought damages for the injuries he sustained, alleging that J-Corp failed to take reasonable care to ensure his safety. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether J-Corp owed a duty of care to Mr Thompson under the principles of occupiers' liability, and if so, whether this duty was breached, resulting in Mr Thompson's injuries. The court also needed to consider the extent of J-Corp's liability given that the event causing the injury was organised by a third party. The court had to assess the scope of the duty of care owed by J-Corp to visitors to its premises and whether this duty extended to activities organised by third parties on those premises.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that J-Corp did owe a duty of care to Mr Thompson as an invitee on their premises. The court found that the duty extended to ensuring the safety of all lawful visitors, including those present during activities organised by third parties. The court reasoned that J-Corp, as the occupier, had control over the premises and had a responsibility to ensure that any event taking place there did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to visitors. The court determined that J-Corp had breached this duty by failing to adequately supervise or control the activities of the third-party contractor, which led to Mr Thompson's injuries. Consequently, the court found J-Corp liable for negligence and awarded damages to Mr Thompson.

The final orders of the court were that J-Corp was liable for Mr Thompson's injuries and was to pay damages reflecting the extent of Mr Thompson's injuries and losses. The court also directed J-Corp to take reasonable steps to prevent similar incidents in the future by implementing adequate safety measures and supervision for any events organised by third parties on its premises.

Orders