Tort Law - Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009] HCA

Running head: TORT LAW
TORT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

TORT LAW1
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009]
HCA 48
Issue
The issue that is to be discussed would be whether there was duty of care owed by the
proprietor of the licensed premises in order to protect the patrons from any kind of tortious or
any criminal conduct.
Rule
The HCA in this particular case deliberated to the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)1 and
along with such the Liquor Act 1982 (NSW)2. It had determined upon finding substantiation at
the trial that the premise did not show any kind of existence of any security personnel which
would have definitely prevented the entrance of the gunman and subsequently, the HCA had also
resolute that the evidence also did not show any kind of security personnel who could have
deterred the re-entry of a indomitable person who was equipped with a gun and along with such
was acting in an irrational manner.
It had also been found upon by the court through the case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht
Co Ltd [1970] 2 All ER 2943 and Stansbie v Troman [1948] 1 All ER 5994 that unlike any other
1 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
2 Liquor Act 1982 (NSW).
3 Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] 2 All ER 294.
4 Stansbie v Troman [1948] 1 All ER 599.

TORT LAW2
cases Adeels5 was not considered to be a case where the substantiation would be demonstrating
that the taking of rational and equitable care would have prevented or avoided the happening of
such an injury to the plaintiffs. It was also said that in taking reasonable care such would not
have had any kind of diverse effect on the irrationality that took place by the criminal gunman.
In case of negligence a defendant is obligated to a certain duty of care towards the
plaintiff. If such duty of care had been breached and due to such an injury or harm has been
caused to the plaintiff then such defendant would be accountable to pay for damages as a
compensation for the injuries. It can be observed from the case of Modbury Triangle Shopping
Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 616.
Analysis
In this particular case the defendant was considered to be Adeels Palace Pty Ltd, which
was a eatery in NSW. On the New Years Eve, Addels Palace had conducted a function, which
had been attended by the general public, and an entrance fee fee had been charged. In the initial
hours, a dispute had taken place and had erupted on the dance floor and such brought a fight
between the plaintiff and another fellow person. The fellow patron left the premise for some
time, entered again with a gun, and shot the plaintiff Mr. Moubarak along with Mr. Bou Najem
who was another patron. Due to such, the plaintiffs had brought proceedings against the
respondent or the defendant in order to claim for damages for the act of negligence along with
for the breach of contract and breach regarding the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)7. In this
5 Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009] HCA 48.
6 Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61.
7 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).