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

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GAUDRON, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

MODBURY TRIANGLE SHOPPING

CENTRE PTY LTD APPELLANT

AND

TONY PAUL ANZIL & ANOR RESPONDENTS

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

23 November 2000

A16/2000

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed with costs. 2. Orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia made on 12 August 1999 set aside. In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to that Court be allowed with costs, the orders of Judge David made on 29 January 1999 are set aside and the action is dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia

Representation:

A J Besanko QC with K G Nicholson for the appellant (instructed by Thomson Playford)

S W Tilmouth QC with B F Beazley and P D Pedler for the respondents (instructed by Knox and Hargrave)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil

Negligence – Duty of care – Whether in the circumstances found an occupier of land owed a duty to take reasonable care to protect those lawfully on its land against the criminal acts of third parties.

1. GLEESON CJ. The first respondent sued the appellant, in tort, for damages for personal injury. The injury was inflicted by three unknown men, one armed with a baseball bat, who criminally assaulted the first respondent in a car park. There is no suggestion that the appellant was vicariously responsible for the conduct of the attackers. The basis of liability is said to be that the appellant was the occupier of the car park; that, at the time of the attack, the car park lights were off; that, in the circumstances of the case, which will be set out in more detail below, the failure to leave the lights on was negligent; that the risk of harm of the kind suffered was foreseeable; and that the negligence was a cause of the harm. 2. The primary issue argued in the appeal concerns the principle upon which an occupier of land may be liable, in an action for negligence, to a person who, whilst on the land, is injured as a result of the deliberate wrongdoing of a third party. There was also an issue as to causation.