Appeal Outcome: Special leave application refused with costs by the High Court - 3 August 2007
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: WAGSTAFF v HASLAM & ANOR [2007] NSWCA 28
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 11 October 2006
JUDGMENT DATE:
26 February 2007JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA at 1; Bryson JA at 3; Basten JA at 4 DECISION: (1) Uphold the cross-appeal and set aside the orders of the trial judge made on 21 April 2006; (2) In lieu thereof, enter judgment for the defendants with costs; (3) Dismiss the appeal against the assessment of damages; (4) Order the Appellant to pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal; (5) Grant the Appellant a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) with respect to the costs of the cross-appeal. CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE – duty of care – nature and content of duty owed by occupier of a hotel to its patrons – whether duty extends to protection against deliberate wrong doings of third parties - NEGLIGENCE – breach and causation – whether there was a breach of duty by the conduct of the bar manager – whether the breach caused the injury - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – inconsistent findings of liability between two plaintiffs in separate causes of action arising from the same incident. LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
ss 3B
30
Liquor Act 1982 (NSW)
ss 2A
103
125
Liquor Ordinance 1975 (ACT)
s79CASES CITED: Chordas v Bryant (Wellington) Pty Ltd (1988) 20 FCR 91
Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 469
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254
Oxlade v Gosbridge Pty Ltd (unrep
NSWCA
18 December 1988)
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Public Transport Corporation v Sartori [1997] 1 VR 168
R v O’Connor (1980) 146 CLR 64
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
Scala v Mammolitti (1965) 114 CLR 153
Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256
TAB Limited v Atlis [2004] NSWCA 322
G. Wagstaff v Haslam [2006] NSWSC 295PARTIES: Teresa Anne Wagstaff – Appellant/Cross-Respondent
Anthony James Haslam – First Respondent/First Cross-Appellant
D & D Haslam Pty Ltd – Second Respondent/Second Cross-AppellantFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40281/06 COUNSEL: R.W. Seton SC/J. Reimer - Appellant/Cross-Respondent
G. Parker – First and Second Respondents/First and Second Cross-AppellantsSOLICITORS: Walsh & Associates, Coffs Harbour – Appellant/Cross-Respondent
Ebsworth & Ebsworth, Sydney – First and Second Respondents/First and Second Cross-AppellantsLOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Common Law Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20218/04 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Studdert J LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 21 April 2006
12 May 2006LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: T. Wagstaff v Haslam & Anor [2006] NSWSC 294
Continue reading Wagstaff v Haslam
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wagstaff v Haslam [2007] NSWCA 28
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 28
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal and cross-appeal concerned the liability of the defendants, as occupiers of a hotel, for injuries sustained by the plaintiffs, patrons of the hotel, due to the actions of a third party. The dispute arose from an incident where one patron assaulted another within the hotel premises. The plaintiffs alleged negligence on the part of the hotel management in failing to adequately protect them from such harm. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the duty of care owed by a hotel occupier to its patrons extended to protecting them from the deliberate criminal acts of third parties, and if so, whether there had been a breach of that duty by the conduct of the bar manager. Furthermore, the court was required to determine whether any such breach had caused the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs, and to address the issue of inconsistent findings of liability between two plaintiffs who had brought separate actions arising from the same incident.
The Court of Appeal upheld the cross-appeal, finding that the duty of care owed by an occupier of a hotel to its patrons did not extend to protecting them from the deliberate wrongdoing of third parties in the circumstances of this case. The court reasoned that while occupiers owe a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their patrons, this duty is generally confined to risks that are foreseeable and preventable through reasonable precautions, and does not typically encompass preventing all criminal acts by third parties. The court found no breach of duty by the bar manager and, consequently, no causation of the plaintiffs' injuries.
In lieu of the trial judge's orders, the Court of Appeal entered judgment for the defendants with costs. The appeal against the assessment of damages was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The appellant was also granted a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) concerning the costs of the cross-appeal.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the duty of care owed by a hotel occupier to its patrons extended to protecting them from the deliberate criminal acts of third parties, and if so, whether there had been a breach of that duty by the conduct of the bar manager. Furthermore, the court was required to determine whether any such breach had caused the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs, and to address the issue of inconsistent findings of liability between two plaintiffs who had brought separate actions arising from the same incident.
The Court of Appeal upheld the cross-appeal, finding that the duty of care owed by an occupier of a hotel to its patrons did not extend to protecting them from the deliberate wrongdoing of third parties in the circumstances of this case. The court reasoned that while occupiers owe a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their patrons, this duty is generally confined to risks that are foreseeable and preventable through reasonable precautions, and does not typically encompass preventing all criminal acts by third parties. The court found no breach of duty by the bar manager and, consequently, no causation of the plaintiffs' injuries.
In lieu of the trial judge's orders, the Court of Appeal entered judgment for the defendants with costs. The appeal against the assessment of damages was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The appellant was also granted a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) concerning the costs of the cross-appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Uphold the cross-appeal and set aside the orders of the trial judge made on 21 April 2006; (2) In lieu thereof, enter judgment for the defendants with costs; (3) Dismiss the appeal against the assessment of damages; (4) Order the Appellant to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal; (5) Grant the Appellant a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) with respect to the costs of the cross-appeal.
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.