What happened

In 2013, a dispute over discarded betting tickets escalated into threats and aggression towards the plaintiff. Staff and another patron intervened, and the aggressor agreed to leave if a taxi was called. He remained at the club, renewed the confrontation and the plaintiff injured his heel while trying to evade him.

The issues

The central question was whether the club should have taken reasonable precautions against further violence after the initial incident. The Court also considered causation where the injury arose during avoidance rather than a direct blow, and the allegation of contributory negligence.

The court's decision

The Court found a foreseeable and significant risk of further harm and that arranging the aggressor's departure was not an onerous precaution in the circumstances. It accepted causation, rejected contributory negligence and awarded AUD 85,697. Future economic loss was not established.

Understanding the figures

The historical AUD 85,697 award comprised AUD 60,500 non-economic loss, AUD 6,927 agreed past expenses and AUD 18,270 agreed past economic loss. The defendant was ordered to pay costs subject to any request within 14 days to relist that issue; costs were separate from damages.

What this case shows

Third-party violence does not necessarily end an occupier's responsibility. What matters includes when the operator became aware of the specific danger, its response and the practicality of further precautions. Injury during a reasonable attempt to escape the danger may fall within the scope of liability.

Why another case may differ

The decision does not impose a guarantee against every altercation. The plaintiff conceded that intoxication could not be established, and the finding focused on known violence and the response afterwards. His return to accommodated employment did not establish a compensable future earnings loss.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →