A retail store occupier's ability to control access to premises (such as by locking doors) and the foreseeability of risk from third-party criminal conduct are not, without more, sufficient to establish a 'special relationship' giving rise to a duty of care to protect customers from that conduct. The factors that justified a duty in Adeels Palace (licensed premises, statutory obligations, well-recognised need for care regarding alcohol-related violence) are not present in ordinary retail premises. A trial judge must undertake the analysis required by ss 5B and 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and cannot merely state that regard has been had to those provisions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.