Gee v NWQ Management P/L & 2 ors [2002] NSWCA 77

Gee v NWQ Management P/L & 2 ors [2002] NSWCA 77

The unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff and Mr Bembow, together with the absence of evidence from the third respondent's employees, established that an employee of the third respondent threw the plaintiff violently to the ground and caused his broken arm. Liability of the third respondent was therefore established and the District Court verdict in its favour could not stand. The appeal against the first and second respondents failed because the asserted non-delegable duty was not established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Appeal From District Court to New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; appeal against the first and second respondents dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; verdict against the third defendant set aside and verdict entered for the plaintiff against the third defendant with damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
['hotel Security' 'causation' 'liability of Security Contractors' 'non Delegable Duty' 'failure to Call Witnesses']
['tort Law' 'personal Injury' 'negligence'] ['hotel Security' 'causation' 'liability of Security Contractors' 'non Delegable Duty' 'failure to Call Witnesses']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Appeal From District Court to New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the third defendant was guilty of negligence in throwing the plaintiff to the ground and causing his broken arm.' 'Whether the first and second respondents owed a non-delegable duty that made them liable for the acts of the security organisation.' 'Whether the verdict for the defendants in the District Court should be set aside.']

Ratio Decidendi

The unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff and Mr Bembow, together with the absence of evidence from the third respondent's employees, established that an employee of the third respondent threw the plaintiff violently to the ground and caused his broken arm. Liability of the third respondent was therefore established and the District Court verdict in its favour could not stand. The appeal against the first and second respondents failed because the asserted non-delegable duty was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; appeal against the first and second respondents dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; verdict against the third defendant set aside and verdict entered for the plaintiff against the third defendant with damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed in part.' 'Set aside the verdict for the defendant against the third defendant that was entered in the District Court.' "In lieu thereof enter a verdict for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed against the third defendant and order the third defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the claim...