University Law Case Study: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak Analysis

This case study analyzes the High Court of Australia case of Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak, focusing on the principles of tort law, specifically negligence and duty of care. The case revolves around a shooting incident at a licensed premise and the subsequent legal proceedings. The analysis delves into the issue of whether the proprietor of the licensed premises owed a duty of care to protect patrons from criminal conduct. It examines the relevant legislation, including the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and the Liquor Act 1982 (NSW), and discusses the court's findings regarding the lack of security personnel and the foreseeability of the harm. The analysis also considers the application of precedent cases, such as Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd and Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil. The conclusion affirms that the defendant, Adeels Palace, breached its duty of care, making it liable for damages. The document includes a bibliography of case laws and relevant legislation.

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

1TORT LAW
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.

2TORT LAW
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).

3TORT LAW
particular scenario, it had been held by the Trial judge that the duty of care had been breached as
the defendant had failed to hire any security staff which led to such breach. An inadequacy in the
security arrangements had also been found by the trial judge as such had contributed to the
plaintiffs being shot which resulted in injuries. Therefore, the appeal of the defendant had been
disagreed upon by the judges holding that the defendant had failed to provide a certain kind of
reasonable protection against the individuals who were inebriated or unruly and violent.
Critical Evaluation
It can be understood that the HCA’s finding is considered to see a certain shift towards
restraining a duty of care which would be imposed on the licensed premises. The risk had also
been understood as such would always have some disagreement or argument between the
individuals at any occasion or any event and the risk would even be higher if those individuals
are considered to be consuming alcohol.
This particular case, demonstrates that the responsibility or the liability of the licensees in
any premises which are licensed would rely upon establishing and beginning to know about the
facts which would require a direct action or any kind of intervention which would help in
safeguarding an individual who is an injured person from any kind of risk which would be
foreseeable of the harm. The evidence is considered to depict such to be so prospectively and
therefore, such should merely be an examination or the evaluation of the events which would
benefit the hindsight.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be understood that the defendant had a certain duty of care owed to the
plaintiffs and since such had been breached the defendant was liable to pay for the damages.

4TORT LAW

5TORT LAW
Bibliography
Case Laws
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009] HCA 48.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] 2 All ER 294.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61.
Stansbie v Troman [1948] 1 All ER 599.
Legislation
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
Liquor Act 1982 (NSW).
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).