ASSESSMENT TASK 1 (CASE NOTE)

Course Code: LAW2447

Lecturer: Loh Ing Hoe
Student name: Ly Anh Tuan-s3818425

Introduction
This case note analyses the case Trajkovski v Ballgate Pty Limited and the decision made by the
judge on 26 October 2018.

Legal issues
The plaintiff is Mr. Trajkovski, while the defendant is Ballgate Pty Limited, also known as “The
Grand Hotel, Rockdale.”

On 14 January 2014, after drinking with his friends at the hotel, the plaintiff stood up to go but
accidentally step on a piece of broken glass which nobody knew it was underneath the table. The
plaintiff thought the injury was not dangerous; however, after few hours, it infected badly, which
need to go to hospital and surgery.

The plaintiff argued he was not aware of pieces of broken glass underneath the table at the hotel.
There are two legal issues: (1) whether The Grand Hotel, the defendant, committed a tort of
negligence whether (2) the plaintiff contributed to the negligence.

Judge’s application to the legal issues

To know if the defendant had committed a tort of negligence, three parts need to be considered,
consisting of a duty of care, breach duty of care and harm created by the breach.

It is vital to recognize whether The Grand Hotel owed a duty of care to Mr. Trajkovski. In this
circumstance, Mr. Trajkovski went to The Grand Hotel to have a drink, so Mr. Trajkovski is the
guest while The Grand Hotel is the occupier. This relationship is recognized as one of the certain
relationships that been established in the categories of duty of care referring to Australian
Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna 1 and Roads & Traffic Authorities v Dederer 2. Because of that,
The Grand Hotel at Rockdale, the defendant, owed a duty of care to Mr. Trajkovski, the plaintiff.

Moreover, the judge needed to determine four factors in the required standard of care to decide if
the defendant breached a duty of care to the plaintiff according to Section 5B (2) of the CLA3

Firstly, about the probability of harm, the judge decided the risk of the wound happened was
significant because customers have the possibility of having injury by a cut of shattered glass. As
a result, the probability of harm occurring is high. I reckon this part's analysis is convincing.
Secondly, regarding the likely seriousness of the damage, the judge stated that any cut because of
broken glass could be fatal, resulting in loss of blood and scarring. Therefore, the seriousness of
harm is substantial. Thirdly, taking precautions was cheap and easy for the defendant since the
judge explained the hotel could have trained or required employee to simply check underneath
the table while collecting the glasses. I agreed with the judge that the cost of taking precautions
is low. Finally, the defendant’s action does not carry any utility to society. Thus, The Grand
Hotel at Rockdale had breached the duty of care.

Lastly, harm made by the violation including causation and remoteness was examined by the
judge. In this case based on the Strong v Woolworths Limited 4, the “but/for” test was
implemented. According to Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Limited 5 , broken glass occurring is
the reason for the injury. If the hotel removed pieces of shattered glass underneath the table, the
plaintiff would not have suffered injury. Consequently, the test was satisfied resulting in
established causation. Concerning the remoteness, this sort of harm is predictable from the
defendant’s conduct since guests can step on piece of broken glass without knowing about it.

With this case, I agree with the judge’s decision that Mr. Trajkovski had won the case because
Ballgate Pty Limited owed a duty of care to him and violated that resulting in harm.
Furthermore, plaintiff did not contribute to the negligence because the defendant failed its
contributory negligence defence since he did not know at that moment the glass was there.
Hence, the injury was not his fault.

1
Australian Safeways Stores Pty Limited v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7
2
Roads & Traffic Authorities v Dederer [2007] HCA 42
3
Section 5B (2) of the CLA
4
Strong v Woolworths [2012] HCA 5
5
Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162
Conclusion
With the strong judgments, I think the case was precisely decided because of the proof of three
factors, including a duty of care, breach of duty of care and harm created by breach. Thus,
Ballgate Pty Limited committed the tort of negligence.

Bibliography
B. Cases
1
Australian Safeways Stores Pty Limited v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7.
2
Roads & Traffic Authorities v Dederer [2007] HCA 42.
4
Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5
5
Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162

C. Legislation

Civil Liability Act 2002 (the Act)