Everett v Comojo UK Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 13
Facts
As (the appellants) were guests at a nightclub; the nightclub had CCTV in operation and security Another guest of the same nightclub, a man named Cecil Croasdaile, injured As Cecil Croasdaile got annoyed by one of As’ conduct of tapping a waitress on the bottom; Croasdale had warned the waitress that As would apologise to her by the end of the night Croasdaile was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and received a life imprisonment sentence As sued the nightclub’s management company on the ground that it had failed to take appropriate action to protect its guests
Legal Issue
Did nightclub management owe its guests a duty to take reasonable care against foreseeable violence by other guests, and had staff breached that duty before this assault?
Held
The Court of Appeal recognised that nightclub management could owe guests a duty to take reasonable care concerning foreseeable violence by other guests. Control over admission and removal, the commercial relationship and the context of the premises supported that duty. The claim nevertheless failed because breach had not been established on the circumstances confronting staff. The occurrence of a serious assault did not prove that reasonable security arrangements or an appropriate response would have prevented it. The decision therefore separates recognising a protective duty from proving that it was broken. It does not make nightclub operators insurers against every unexpected act of violence by a customer.
⭐ Legal Principle
Nightclub management can owe guests a duty to take reasonable care against foreseeable violence by other guests. The scope depends on control and circumstances. Establishing that duty does not itself prove breach or make the operator responsible for every assault on the premises.
Significance
Everett is valuable because the claimant lost despite establishing that a duty could exist. It prevents duty, breach and causation being compressed into a single question about whether a business controls premises. Staff must respond reasonably to the information and risks they encounter, rather than guarantee safety against all violence. The case also illustrates an exception to a simplistic statement that defendants are never required to take care concerning third-party misconduct.
Common exam questions about this case
Why could the nightclub owe a duty regarding another guest?
Management controlled admission, removal and security arrangements and invited guests into a commercial setting. Those features could justify reasonable protective obligations against foreseeable violence. The duty was based on that relationship and control, not merely on the general ability to imagine that one person might attack another.
Why did recognising the duty not make the claim succeed?
The claimant still had to establish that staff failed to respond as reasonable management would in the circumstances. The court did not find the necessary breach. A violent outcome can occur despite reasonable precautions, so the duty cannot be treated as a promise that no assault will occur.
What facts would matter in a similar problem?
Consider what staff knew about threats, the opportunity to intervene, the available security arrangements and whether a reasonable response would have prevented the harm. These facts address breach and causation. Simply stating that the defendant owned or managed the premises leaves those necessary questions unanswered.