NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Cook v R & M Reurich Holdings Pty. Ltd [2004] NSWCA 268 HEARING DATE(S) : 26/07/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 23 September 2004
JUDGMENT OF : Beazley JA at 1; Santow JA at 2; Stein AJA at 3 DECISION : Appeal allowed with costs.
CATCHWORDS : NEGLIGENCE - fire at Conference Centre - owner seeks help from visitors - duty of care to visitors in case of emergency - request for help - whether reasonably forseeable that visitors will seek to help control fire - whether forseeable that appellant might suffer injury - failure to implement emergency plan - whether breach of duty. (ND) Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540 CASES CITED : Hargrave v Goldman (1963) 110 CLR 40 Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd. v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254 at [112]. State of NSW v Napier [2002] NSWCA 402. Tame v NSW (2002) 211 CLR 317. PARTIES : Marta Louise Cook (Appellant) R & M Reurich Holdings Pty. Ltd.(Respondent) FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40583/03 COUNSEL : D.F. Graham and R.E. Steele (Appellant) B. Hull (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Griffiths Delaney & Co (Appellant) Abbott Tout (Respondent)
LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 7557/01 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Gamble ADCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40583 of 2003 DC 7557 of 2001
BEAZLEY JA SANTOW JA STEIN AJA
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate