Weston v Stinson Nominees Pty Ltd - [2009] WADC 67

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: WESTON -v- STINSON NOMINEES PTY LTD [2009] WADC 67

CORAM: SLEIGHT DCJ

HEARD: 3-4 FEBRUARY 2009

DELIVERED : 6 MAY 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 2292 of 2006

BETWEEN: BRADLEY JAMES WESTON
Plaintiff
AND
STINSON NOMINEES PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Plaintiff injured in tavern whilst being restrained - Liability of owners of licensed premises for injury to patron - Civil Liability Act 2002 - Obligations under the Liquor Control Act 1988 - Defences under the Criminal Code - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002
Criminal Code
Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913
Liquor Licensing Act 1988

Result:

Claim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr K S Pratt
Defendant: Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Trewin Norman & Co
Defendant: Kott Gunning

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

Carpenter & Anor v Hinkley [2008] WADC 161
Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 469
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2002] HCA 54; (2002) 194 ALR 337
Meeks v Kirkham [2000] WASCA 94
Neindorf v Junkovic [2005] HCA 75
Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer & Anor [2007] HCA 42
Waverley Council v Ferreira [2005] NSWCA 418
West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Bridge and Tozer (1979) 141 CLR 535
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

SLEIGHT DCJ: The plaintiff, Mr Weston, went to the Princess Road Tavern (a business conducted by the defendant) on the evening of 16 June 2005 expecting to represent the tavern in an A‑grade dart competition. He arrived at the tavern at about 7.30 pm. He had already consumed by that time approximately five to six cans of full‑strength beer. On arriving at the tavern Mr Weston was told he was not permitted to play in the competition as his name had not been included in the official team list. This angered Mr Weston and he argued with officials but to no avail. Unable to play in the darts competition, Mr Weston retired to the public bar area of the tavern where he consumed a further quantity of beer and played pool with a friend, Mr Dean Meade. At about 10.30 pm an incident occurred, with Mr Weston becoming involved in a verbal exchange with a barmaid, Mrs Leanne Bowdidge, over Mr Weston's behaviour. As a result of the verbal altercation Mr Weston stood up on a tray which ran along the base of the bar and at the very least remonstrated with the barmaid. An employee of the defendant, Mr Daniel John Edwards, intervened and pulled Mr Weston away from the bar surface. At the same time Mr Meade also applied force to remove Mr Weston from the bar surface. Somehow Mr Weston's foot became caught up in the tray at the base of the bar and, with the application of force, Mr Weston fell backwards on to the floor. In doing so Mr Weston fractured his tibia…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Weston v Stinson Nominees Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] WADC 67
Decision Date: 6 MAY 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Weston, was injured in the defendant's tavern whilst the defendant, Stinson Nominees Pty Ltd, was restraining him. Weston sought damages for his injuries. The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant was liable for the injuries under the Civil Liability Act 2002 and whether the defendant had fulfilled their obligations under the Liquor Control Act 1988 and the Criminal Code. The court had to consider whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether that duty was breached. The court also had to examine whether the defendant had defences available to them under the Criminal Code.

The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and that this duty was breached. The court held that the defendant had failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the plaintiff was not injured whilst being restrained. The court rejected the defendant's argument that they were not liable for the injuries as they were acting in self-defence. The court held that the defendant had not acted reasonably in restraining the plaintiff and that their actions had caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court found that the defendant had not fulfilled their obligations under the Liquor Control Act 1988 as they had not taken reasonable care to ensure that the plaintiff was not injured whilst on their premises. The court held that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries and that they were not entitled to any defences under the Criminal Code.

The court awarded damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $20,000. The court held that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries and that they were not entitled to any defences under the Criminal Code. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's damages and costs. The court held that the defendant had breached their duty of care to the plaintiff and that they were liable for the injuries caused. The court found that the defendant had not acted reasonably in restraining the plaintiff and that their actions had caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court held that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries and that they were not entitled to any defences under the Criminal Code.

Orders