G L Nederland (Asia) Pty Ltd v Expertise Events Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 62

New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : G L Nederland (Asia) Pty Ltd v Expertise Events Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 62 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40449/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 16 March 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 16 March 1999

PARTIES : G L Nederland (Asia) Pty Ltd Expertise Events Pty Ltd JUDGMENT OF : Spigelman CJ at 29; Beazley JA at 30; Giles JA at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 2102/96 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Balla, ADCJ

COUNSEL : Appellant - P M Donohoe QC Respondent - Dr C J Birch & J J Loofs SOLICITORS : Appellant - Mooney & Kennedy, Sydney Respondent - Williams Woolfe & Zuur, Dee Why CATCHWORDS : Contract - exclusion clause - construction - Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500 applied. DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40449/98 DC 2102/96

SPIGELMAN CJ BEAZLEY JA GILES JA

Tuesday 16 March 1999

G J NEDERLAND (ASIA) PTY LIMITED v EXPERTISE EVENTS PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I will ask Giles JA to deliver the first judgment.

2 GILES JA: The appellant, a wholesale distributor of jewellery, was an exhibitor at the Australian Jewellery Fair organised by the respondent at Darling Harbour at Sydney in September 1995. A suitcase containing jewellery was stolen from its stand at the fair. The appellant sued the respondent, and another company which provided security services for the fair, claiming the value of the stolen jewellery.

3 It was held that the respondent had been in breach of a duty of care owed to the appellant, in that it failed to limit entrance to members of the jewellery trade and to provide additional security, and that the negligence materially contributed to the loss; further, that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, in that it left the suitcase in a position easily accessible and did not secure it by a chain or at least a locked cabinet, which also contributed to the loss. The respondent was held entitled, however, to the benefit of an exclusion clause in the contract under which the appellant had become an exhibitor. The alternative claim against the provider of security services succeeded, and the appellant obtained judgment against it for $234,396.29, but we were told that the company had gone into liquidation.