Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Judge | Gleeson CJ,Gaudron J,Kirby J,Hayne J,Callinan J |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 2000 |
| Neutral Citation | 2000-1123 HCA B,[2000] HCA 61 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | A16/2000 |
| Date | 23 November 2000 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
159 cases
-
Fullowka et al. v. Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd. et al., (2008) 433 A.R. 69 (NWTCA)
...300 F.3d 683; 2002 FED App. 0270P (6th Cir.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 66]. Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. v. Anzil, [2000] HCA 61; 205 C.L.R. 254, refd to. [para. 36, footnote Smith v. Leurs (1945), 70 C.L.R. 256 (H.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 67]. Ship Koursk, Re, ......
-
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police
...J preferred a more expansive formulation based on the application of Anns. 92 In Australia, the High Court held in Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254 that the proprietors of a shopping centre owed no duty of care towards visitors to protect them against the ......
-
(1) CN v Poole Borough Council
...for not preventing evil is, comparatively speaking, the exception”. As Gleeson CJ said in the High Court of Australia in Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 C.L.R. 254 at para.28, “If people were under a legal duty to prevent foreseeable harm to others, the burden im......
-
Ann Thomson (ap) V. The Scottish Ministers
...as observed by Dixon J in Smith, had been endorsed by the High Court of Australia in Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254 (Gleeson CJ at paras [29] and [30]) as follows: "The unpredictability of criminal behaviour is one of the reasons why, as a general rule, and ......
Request a trial to view additional results
14 firm's commentaries
-
Negligence and Causation: Failure to have bouncers at the door not causative of plaintiffs being shot
...Civil Liability Act. This is the touchstone in determining causation. 1 French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ 2 [2000] HCA 42 3 [2000] HCA 61 4 [2009] HCA 42 5 [2009] NSWCA 263 6 [2009] NSWCA 247 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject mat......
-
No special duty to protect customers from third party criminal conduct
...than not they would not have been injured if such a system was in place. Footnotes 1 Basten and Meagher JJA, Davies J in agreement 2 [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254 3 Ibid at [26] 4 Ibid at [35] 5 Ibid at [29] 6 [2009] HCA 48; 239 CLR 420 at Ranked No 1 - Australia's fastest growing law firm' (L......
-
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak: High Court of Australia reigns in the scope of 'Duty of Care'
...in relation the criminal conduct of third parties, in accordance with the principles in Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61. The NSWCA disagreed, holding that the defendant failed to provide reasonable protection against intoxicated, unruly or violent patrons who ......
-
Occupiers' liability: the landlord, the owners corporation, the criminal and the entrant
...glass in structures of that nature. Is there a duty to guard against criminal acts? In Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61, which involved an employee who was assaulted in the car park of a shopping centre where he worked, the High Court held that an owner/occupie......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
-
Government liability in negligence.
...(175) See, eg, Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479. Cf Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pry Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254. (176) See, eg, Howard v Jarvis (1958) 98 CLR 177; Dixon v Western Australia [1974] WAR 65; L v Commonwealth (1976) 10 ALR 269. (177) See, eg......
-
THE PROMISE OF UNIVERSALITY
...461 and Commissioner for Railways v McDermott[1967] 1 AC 169 at 186. 126 For example, Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil(2000) 205 CLR 254 at 264 and Bhamra v Dubb[2010] EWCA Civ 13 at [25]. 127 For example, Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee(1999) 200 CLR 1 at ......
-
Should advocates' immunity continue?
...at 96-8. (278) This seems to be the best explanation of the fragmented reasoning in Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254. (279) [1999] 167 ALR 575, 602 (280) Ibid 602. (281) But see Yeo, above n 3. Yeo believes that advocates' immunity should be narrowed. He s......
-
SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ANNUAL LECTURE 2007: “AUSTRALIA’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMON LAW”
...55 [1990] 2 AC 605 at 617—618. 56 For example, Perre v Apand Pty Ltd(1999) 198 CLR 180; Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil(2000) 205 CLR 254; Sullivan v Moody(2001) 207 CLR 562. 57 (2001) 207 CLR 562 at 579, [49]. 58 (2002) 211 CLR 317. 59 (1987) 162 CLR 479 (“Zaluzna”). 60 [1......