AUSTRALIAN SOCCER POOLS PTY LTD v GAIR [1989] NSWCA 14

AUSTRALIAN SOCCER POOLS PTY LTD v GAIR [1989] NSWCA 14

The terms upon which the appellant provided the car to Mr Gair operated to define and limit the ambit of the duty of care owed by Gair Jnr as a member of Mr Gair’s family to the appellant. Careless use of the vehicle did not, in these circumstances, establish a breach of that duty since the appellant agreed to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Australian Soccer Pools Pty Ltd; First Defendant/respondent: Robin Gair; Second Defendant/respondent: Christopher Gair (Gair Jnr)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 1989
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Proximate Relationship, Contractual Indemnity, Motor Vehicle Liability
Negligence Contract Law Duty of Care Proximate Relationship Contractual Indemnity Motor Vehicle Liability

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Soccer Pools Pty Ltd

Appellant

Robin Gair

First Defendant/respondent

Christopher Gair (Gair Jnr)

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent (Gair Jnr), as an authorised user of a company car, owed a duty of care to the appellant employer and breached it by carelessly damaging the vehicle
  2. 2 Whether the contractual arrangement between the appellant and the respondent's father limits the duty of care owed by the respondent to the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The terms upon which the appellant provided the car to Mr Gair operated to define and limit the ambit of the duty of care owed by Gair Jnr as a member of Mr Gair’s family to the appellant. Careless use of the vehicle did not, in these circumstances, establish a breach of that duty since the appellant agreed to accept responsibility for such risks. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.