Anderson v Hotel Capital Trading Pty Limited

[2005] NSWCA 78

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Negligence
2. › Employer's duty of care
3. › Safe place and system of work
4. › Hotel employee injured in armed robbery
5. › Whether employer negligent in failing to provide armed security guards
6. › Whether security systems in place were reasonable
1. Negligence
2. › Employer's duty of care
3. › Training and warning
4. › Whether employer negligent in failing to train employee to recognise risks of responding to calls from unoccupied rooms
5. › Sufficiency of evidence to establish failure to train
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact
4. › Acceptance of expert evidence
5. › Whether trial judge adequately explained preference for one expert over another
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › New arguments on appeal
3. › Whether argument not advanced at trial may be raised on appeal
4. › Failure to put case below on basis now contended

Quick Take

An employer's duty to provide a safe system of work does not extend to requiring armed security guards at commercial premises receiving cash, absent evidence of special risks beyond ordinary street crime in the area. The fact that a robbery was facilitated by inside information is a factor weighing against a finding of employer negligence. A plaintiff alleging failure to train must adduce evidence at trial establishing both the absence of training and the content of the training that should have been provided and how it would have avoided the injury.