OXLADE v GOSBRIDGE PTY LTD [1998] NSWCA 167

OXLADE v GOSBRIDGE PTY LTD [1998] NSWCA 167

The respondents, as occupiers of licensed premises with a history and foreseeability of intoxicated, boisterous patrons, owed a duty of care to protect patrons such as Mr Parrish from foreseeable risk in the carpark at closing time. Failure to provide a visible security presence breached that duty, and that breach materially contributed to the appellant's reaction leading to the injury of Mr Parrish. Apportionment of liability as tortfeasors was appropriate.

Parties
Appellant: Oxlade; First Respondent / Third Party: Gosbridge Pty Ltd; Second Respondent / Third Party: Second respondent (name not specified); Third Respondent / Third Party, Licensee: Third respondent (name not specified); Plaintiff (at Trial), Injured Party: Mr Parrish
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal After Appeal From District Court Decision on Third Party Contribution
Outcome
appeal allowed (by majority)
Legal Topics
Occupier's Liability, Negligence, Contribution, Duty of Care, Causation
Tort Law Occupier's Liability Negligence Contribution Duty of Care 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oxlade

Appellant

Gosbridge Pty Ltd

First Respondent / Third Party

Second respondent (name not specified)

Second Respondent / Third Party

Third respondent (name not specified)

Third Respondent / Third Party, Licensee

Mr Parrish

Plaintiff (at Trial), Injured Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal After Appeal From District Court Decision on Third Party Contribution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents as occupiers owed a duty of care to Mr Parrish
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of that duty by failing to provide a safe means of exit or security in the carpark
  3. 3 Whether that breach materially contributed to Mr Parrish's injury

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, as occupiers of licensed premises with a history and foreseeability of intoxicated, boisterous patrons, owed a duty of care to protect patrons such as Mr Parrish from foreseeable risk in the carpark at closing time. Failure to provide a visible security presence breached that duty, and that breach materially contributed to the appellant's reaction leading to the injury of Mr Parrish. Apportionment of liability as tortfeasors was appropriate.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed (by majority)

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Set aside the orders made in the proceedings on the Third Party Notice.