Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61

Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61

An occupier of land does not, as a matter of general principle, owe a duty of care to protect those lawfully upon the land from the criminal acts of third parties. Foreseeability of risk is insufficient; there must be a special relationship or a high level of recurrent, predictable criminal behaviour known to the occupier. In this case, the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not special, and the circumstances did not justify the imposition of such a duty. Therefore, as a matter of law, the appellant was not liable for failing to prevent harm caused by third-party criminal conduct.

Parties
Appellant: Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Tony Paul Anzil; Second Respondent: Christine Anzil
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia (on Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Occupiers' Liability, Liability for Criminal Acts of Third Parties, Causation
Tort Law Negligence Duty of Care Occupiers' Liability Liability for Criminal Acts of Third Parties Causation

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd

Appellant

Tony Paul Anzil

First Respondent

Christine Anzil

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia (on Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an occupier of land owes a duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect those lawfully on its land from the criminal acts of third parties
  2. 2 Whether the failure by the occupier to leave car park lights on constituted breach of duty and caused the harm suffered by the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

An occupier of land does not, as a matter of general principle, owe a duty of care to protect those lawfully upon the land from the criminal acts of third parties. Foreseeability of risk is insufficient; there must be a special relationship or a high level of recurrent, predictable criminal behaviour known to the occupier. In this case, the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not special, and the circumstances did not justify the imposition of such a duty. Therefore, as a matter of law, the appellant was not liable for failing to prevent harm caused by third-party criminal conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia made on 12 August 1999 set aside.