Yakou v Jo-Yo Nominees Pty Ltd - [2025] VSC 58

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

S ECI 2021 02848

BETWEEN:

EWAN YAKOU	Plaintiff
and
JAMAL YOUNAN	First Defendant
and
JO-YO NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 154 299 813)	Second Defendant
and
GENESIS INTERNATIONAL (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 130 479 104)	Third Defendant

---

JUDGE:	O’Meara J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 October and 17 December 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 February 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Yakou v Jo-Yo Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 58

---

PERSONAL INJURIES – Plaintiff and two friends attended a ticketed concert held in the ‘Oasis room’ of a function centre in Somerton – Second defendant occupier – Third defendant landlord – Retention of security guards for the concert – Dispute over ‘corkage’ charges – One or both of the friends assaulted at least the first defendant and both were ejected from the foyer of the ‘Oasis room’ – Plaintiff began to drive his friends from the premises – Plaintiff’s friends alighted from the vehicle and re-entered the foyer precipitating a major brawl – Plaintiff followed his friends into the foyer – Circumstances of brawl – During the brawl the plaintiff was stabbed twice by the first defendant using a large kitchen knife – Trial on liability against second and third defendants – Assessment of the reliability of witnesses – New and ‘scattergun’ contentions of fact and liability – Times and aspects of the circumstances of the ‘corkage’ dispute and brawl – Video footage taken at different points and from different perspectives – Whether plaintiff participated in the fighting – Various findings of fact made – Duty of care – Ultimate arguments as to breach of duty – Whether written security policies and procedures – Whether absence of written security policies and procedures was a ‘necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm’ – Responsibility for the foyer door – Whether foyer door ‘broken’ or ‘not functioning correctly’ – Whether foyer door locked, unsupervised and/or insufficiently ‘stationed’ – Formula for the calculation of numbers of security guards – Whether plaintiff engaged in ‘illegal activity’ – Remnant liability arguments – No causal breach of duty by either defendant – Whether the risk of harm was an ‘obvious risk’ – Whether harm suffered by plaintiff as a result of the ‘materialisation of an inherent risk’ – Contributory negligence – Pleaded defences unnecessary finally to determine – Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) ss 14B, 14G, 51, 53, 54 and 55 – Raciti v Wadren Pty Ltd [2006] VSCA 132, Lafranchi v Transport Accident Commission (2006) 14 VR 359 and Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420 – Proceeding against the second and third defendants dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	ADB Ingram KC with P Haddad	Bowman & Knox Lawyers
For the First Defendant	S Bailey and A Tate (on only 22 October 2024)	Kauthen Legal
For the Second Defendant

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 Yakou v Jo-Yo 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: [2025] VSC 58
Decision Date: 28 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Yakou v Jo-Yo Nominees Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Yakou, sought damages from the second and third defendants, the occupier and landlord of a function centre, respectively, after being stabbed during a brawl at a concert. The central issues revolved around the defendants' duty of care and whether they were negligent in their security measures, which allegedly led to the stabbing. The court was tasked with determining if the absence of written security policies was a necessary condition for the harm to occur and if the defendants breached their duty of care through their handling of the foyer door and security staffing.

The court meticulously examined the evidence, including witness testimonies and video footage, to establish the facts of the incident. The plaintiff argued that the defendants failed to adequately supervise the foyer and maintain appropriate security measures. Conversely, the defendants contended that the plaintiff participated in the brawl and that the harm was an obvious risk or an inherent risk of attending such an event. The court concluded that there was no breach of duty by the defendants. It found that the risk of harm was either an obvious or inherent risk, and thus, not preventable. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was not a deciding factor.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the proceeding against the second and third defendants, holding that no causal breach of duty had occurred. The decision hinged on the characterisation of the risks involved and the defendants' lack of control over the events leading to the plaintiff's injuries. The court's judgment underscored the importance of distinguishing between foreseeable and unforeseeable risks in the context of duty of care in such settings.

Orders