Smith v Croote Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 35

Smith v Croote Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 35

Negligence found by primary judge in planning and communication for security was not a necessary condition of Mr Smith's injury. No factual causation shown between any breach and the assault, which was a deliberate third-party act. The requirements of s 5D Civil Liability Act 2002 were not satisfied.

Parties
Appellant: Geoffrey John Smith; First Respondent: Croote Pty Limited; Second Respondent: TA & EL Dunn Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Dangerous Premises, Injuries to Persons Entering Premises, Liability of Hotel Proprietor and Security Provider
Torts Negligence Dangerous Premises Injuries to Persons Entering Premises Liability of Hotel Proprietor and Security Provider

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

Parties

Geoffrey John Smith

Appellant

Croote Pty Limited

First Respondent

TA & EL Dunn Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether hotel proprietor and security provider owed and breached duty of care to patron assaulted on licensed premises
  2. 2 whether insufficient security and lack of planning were causally connected to resulting injury
  3. 3 applicability of Civil Liability Act 2002 s 5D factual causation

Ratio Decidendi

Negligence found by primary judge in planning and communication for security was not a necessary condition of Mr Smith's injury. No factual causation shown between any breach and the assault, which was a deliberate third-party act. The requirements of s 5D Civil Liability Act 2002 were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay costs of First and Second Respondents