Case Law Developments within the Hospitality, Retail & Leisure sectors (September 2026)

The major recent developments within the Australian Hospitality and Leisure industries have been centred around amendments to the liquor licensing laws and regulations, as well as proposed protections for workers in these industries against customer violence and abuse. 

There has continued to be few substantive developments when it comes to “slip and fall” case law, which is likely informed by cost-benefit analyses weighing into settlement vs trial decision making. 

To read about the latest legislative and regulatory developments, visit our related article here, and see case law developments outlined below.

Case Law Developments in the Hospitality, Retail & Leisure Industries

Ibbett v Debilu Ltd t/as Ravesis on Bondi Beach & Ors [2026] NSWDC 129 

The Plaintiff was a patron at licensed premises. She  was injured while attempting to assist a security guard who was being assaulted by another patron.  The security guard was an employee of a subcontractor security contractor engaged by the head security contracted for the premises, and had sought radio assistance for one minute 27 seconds prior to the assault, without answer. 

The Court was asked to consider whether the owner/operator of the licensed premises was negligent in failing to maintain an adequate radio response protocol for security personnel and whether the head security contractor was vicariously liable for the actions of the subcontractor security contractor’s employees. 

The Court found in favour of the owner/operator (mainly because the Plaintiff failed to properly plead her case against them) and the head security contractor;, the latter due to the fact that the head contractor was not the direct employer of the security guard and did not exercise control over the security guard’s actions sufficient to create a vicarious relationship. The Court affirmed that two separate principals/employers cannot be held vicariously liable for the same tortious act or omission of a single worker.  The Plaintiff obtained default judgment against the subcontractor security contractor, however, they had been placed in liquidation, and she failed to obtain leave to pursue enforcement of the judgment. 

Woolnough v Whittlesea City Council & Anor [2026] VSC 190 

The Plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries after falling while attempting to jump over a boundary fence separating a cricket oval from adjacent cricket nets during a training session. While pedestrian gates were available to proceed from the oval to the nets, they necessitated a longer walk.  The evidence established that the majority of players routinely climbed or jumped over the boundary fence. Following the incident, the Council installed a gate at the location where the incident arose. 

The Plaintiff sued the Council (as occupier of the premises) and the cricket club (as the entity using the premises). 

The cricket club provided evidence that was not responsible for the infrastructure at the premises and had otherwise requested that the Council install a gate on a prior occasion; the Court accepted this evidence and the Plaintiff’s claim against them failed. 

As against the Council, the Court held that the risk of injury was foreseeable and not insignificant when viewed cumulatively, noting that while the risk from any single instance of jumping a fence was low, the Council knew or ought to have known that large numbers of users would repeatedly engage in this behaviour and, applying the statutory factors, the minimal cost and ease of installing a gate strongly favoured taking precautions and it was held that a reasonable Council would have installed a gate prior to the incident, with the Council’s failure to do so constituting a breach of its duty of care.   

The Council’s defence of voluntary assumption of risk failed because the threshold for volenti was not met, noting that the Plaintiff did not fully appreciate or accept the risk of serious or catastrophic injury arising from his actions; however, contributory negligence was found in the order of 20%. 

Damages were awarded to the Plaintiff in the agreed sum of $19 million, reduced by 20% to $15.2 million for contributory negligence. 

The decision highlights that an occupier cannot simply rely upon the defence of obvious risk, or the voluntary assumption of risk, where they are on notice of the risk and have a positive duty to address this. Essentially, an occupier cannot ‘sit on its hands’ and rely upon the sensibility of others to avoid known risks of harm from eventuating. 

Perth Day Hospital Pty Ltd v Fitness Cartel Western Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] WASC 314 

The Plaintiff operated a private day hospital, performing pain-management and endoscopy procedures, in a commercial strata complex adjoining the Defendant’s 24-hour gymnasium.  

It was alleged that noise and vibration from the weightlifting and high-intensity training conducted at the Defendant’s premises substantially interfered with the Plaintiff’s medical procedures, therefore, the Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the Defendant.  

Although the interference before June 2026 was substantial and unreasonable when assessed against ordinary office use, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s delicate procedures constituted a hypersensitive rather than ordinary use of the premises. By contrast, operating a gym was a common and ordinary use within the industrial locality and the building’s history. 

The Defendant submitted that it had implemented measures to mitigate the impact of gym activities, including by reducing music, modifying flooring and discouraging disruptive member behaviour. Despite this, the Plaintiff proceeded with a claim for private nuisance seeking a permanent injunction.  

The Court found that the Defendant’s measures made the gym’s activities “conveniently done” by June 2026 and reduced any subsequent or ongoing interference to an insubstantial level.  

Applying the principle of reciprocity and balancing the parties’ competing uses of the commercial building, the Court found that permanently restricting the Defendant’s gym operations was unjustified. The Plaintiff’s action was thus dismissed and the interlocutory injunction granted on 2 June 2026 was also dissolved. 

Gibson Hotels Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Liquor and Gaming [2026] QCAT 204 

The Plaintiff held a Commercial Hotel Licence for a hotel with an on-premises takeaway bottle shop (BS 1), which had operated from 10am to midnight before 2010. In 2024, the plaintiff applied to expand the licensed premises onto adjoining land by adding a liquor barn and drive-through bottle shop (BS 2), seeking the same trading hours. Although the Respondent approved the expansion, it restricted BS 2’s hours to 10am–10pm due to amendments introduced by the Liquor and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) and the Tackling Alcohol-Fuelled Violence Amendment Act 2016 (Qld). The Plaintiff sought review, arguing that s 305 of the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) preserved its pre-existing entitlement to trade until midnight. 

QCAT held that s 305 preserved the Plaintiff’s right to operate BS 2 during the same hours as BS 1 because the licensed premises existed before the 2010 amendments. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s narrower interpretation as inconsistent with the objects and overall operation of the Act. It found that “new applications” in the 2010 amendment’s explanatory notes referred to applications for entirely new bottle shops or takeaway outlets, rather than applications to expand licensed premises already operating before 2010. 

Re Woolworths Group Ltd (2026 Don River Dash) [2026] QIRC 264 

The Plaintiff applied under s 31A of the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 (Qld) for the Don River Dash, scheduled for 4 to 6 September 2026, to be declared a special event. The declaration would have permitted non-exempt shops in the specified Bowen area to trade beyond their core hours, particularly on Sunday 6 September 2026.  

The Plaintiff relied on the event’s alleged motorsport, tourism and economic significance, supported by sales data and anecdotal evidence. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) and the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) opposed the Plaintiff’s application, arguing that the statutory threshold had not been met and that there was no reliable evidence presented of unmet consumer demand or economic impact. 

 The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient admissible and current evidence addressing the criteria in s 31B. In particular, it found that there was inadequate evidence concerning attendance, visitor demographics, registrations, economic impact, cultural significance or unmet demand for extended Sunday trading. The event had also operated successfully for seven (7) years without extended hours, indicating that existing trading arrangements were adequate. The Commission further held that its statutory discretion could not be replaced by consent between the parties and that any proposed consent orders must still satisfy the legislative criteria. 

Re Woolworths Group Ltd [2026] QIRC 273 

 The Plaintiff applied under s 31A of the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 (Qld) for the Mount Isa Mines Rodeo (Rodeo), held from 7 to 9 August 2026, to be declared a special event. The declaration would permit non-exempt shops within a defined geographical area to trade beyond ordinary hours during the Rodeo.  

 The evidence established that the Rodeo is the largest in the southern hemisphere and has substantial sporting, cultural, tourism and economic significance. Although the Mount Isa City Council and Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees (SDA) raised concerns that employees could be pressured to work extended hours, the parties ultimately reached a consent position. 

 The Commission granted the application, finding that the Rodeo satisfied the criteria in s 31B because it was a unique and infrequent event of local, state and national significance, generated substantial economic and tourism benefits, and created increased demand requiring extended trading. Further, the employee protections and voluntary rostering requirements under s 36BA were considered sufficient to address the SDA’s concerns. Accordingly, the Commission ordered that non-exempt shops within the specified area were permitted to trade from 8am to 9pm on 7 August, 8am to 6pm on 8 August and 10am to 5pm on 9 August 2026. 

Delegate of the Director of Liquor Licensing Decision Notice – Gillen Club Incorporated 

The licensee was the subject of a complaint under s 160 of the Liquor Act 2019 (NT) following an incident on 18 July 2026. CCTV footage showed several patrons dancing on tables and removing their lower clothing while dancing to “Eagle Rock”. One patron, who had consumed at least nine drinks over three hours, jumped from a table, then slipped and fell. Despite several opportunities to intervene, staff and crowd controllers failed to stop the disorderly behaviour, or remove patrons who were incapable of controlling themselves. 

The delegate upheld the complaint, finding that the licensee breached s 141(1) by failing to exclude or remove disorderly patrons. In determining the penalty, the delegate considered the seriousness and potential consequences of the incident, but also the licensee’s admission, cooperation, remedial measures, and absence of prior disciplinary action. An infringement notice of three penalty units, totalling $582, was issued. 

Delegate of the Director of Liquor Licensing Decision Notice – Alice Choice Caterers Pty Ltd 

The licensee was investigated after failing to provide an inspector with details identifying the licensed crowd controllers listed on a security company invoice by 19 June 2026. During subsequent inspections, only one of the security guards was determined to hold a licence under the Private Security Act 1995 (NT) and the licensee also confirmed that it had not installed the noise-limiting device required by conditions imposed on the licence by the Liquor Commission in September 2024. Those conditions continued to apply after the licence was transferred to the current licensee in March 2026. Despite being invited to respond to the complaint and request an extension in writing, the licensee provided no formal response. 

 The delegate upheld the complaint on the balance of probabilities, finding breaches of s 109(1) for failing to produce the requested records and s 293(1) for failing to comply with the noise-limiting condition. Having considered proportionality, deterrence, the seriousness of the conduct and the licensee’s compliance history, the delegate issued infringement notices of one penalty unit for the s 109 breach and five penalty units for the s 293 breach, totalling $1,134. 

Almazaydeh v Gajjh United Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 331 

The Plaintiff slipped on a wet floor at a McDonald’s restaurant during cleaning operations. The mopped area extended approximately 50cm beyond the nearest wet floor sign, meaning the hazard was not accurately defined by the signage in place. High quality CCTV footage of the incident was available and proved significant in the Court’s findings.

The Court found that the Defendant had breached its duty of care, noting that while McDonald’s had a reasonable cleaning system in place which entailed limiting mopping to a 3m x 3m area at a time and following with a dry mop, the CCTV footage on the day revealed those guidelines were not being followed as the mopped area exceeded the prescribed size and the warning signs did not accurately reflect the extent of the hazard. 

Manuel v Hellenic Club of Canberra [2026] ACTSC 131 

The Plaintiff attended the Hellenic Club of Canberra to play Bingo when, while crossing the foyer, she tripped on a cracked floor tile and fell, sustaining injuries. CCTV footage captured the fall and its aftermath, showing the Plaintiff pointing to the location where she tripped. 

The Club Duty Manager suggested that the tile had not been repaired because it would cost too much to fix, and that fixing one tile would require replacing the entire floor. However, the Club’s Facility Manager’s evidence at trial directly contradicted this, establishing that the cost and time required to repair the cracked tile was in fact minimal. 

Both parties engaged expert witnesses on whether the tile constituted a trip hazard, with both experts agreeing that a raised surface of 3mm or more constitutes a trip hazard. As such, the Court was satisfied that the raised surface of the cracked tile caused the Plaintiff to trip and fall and that the Club was aware of the hazard and could have fixed it, at a low cost, but chose not to.  

The Court found the Defendant’s negligence caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. 

Eklom v Marshall [2026] FedCFamC2G 772 

 The applicant, Mr Samuel Eklom, commenced employment as a storage consultant in September 2023 and his role expanded until he became the site manager responsible for the day-to-day operations, including customer service, marketing, banking and maintenance co–ordination.  

From late 2024 – early 2025, on the applicant’s evidence, a contractor and the business’ first customer, Mr Jacob Marshall, began targeting the applicant with homophobic and sexualised comments and engaged in unwanted physical contact that was brushed off as a joke. When a regular customer, Mr Troy Mitchell, joined in, the conduct escalated into what the Court described as almost a game between Mr Marshall and the customer, with the applicant made the butt of the joke. The comments became progressively cruder and more degrading over the following months and included references framed around sexual assault.  

The applicant eventually complained to his employer and said that his complaints were not listened to. He was later dismissed from his employment.  

The applicant originally sued his employer in addition to Mr Marshall and Mr Mitchell, however, discontinued against the employer once its defence showed that it did not employ Mr Marshall or Mr Mitchell. 

Declarations were made that Mr Marshall and Mr Mitchell had contravened section 527D of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – which had been introduced as part of the 2022 reforms to protect workers from sexual harassment in the workplace, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators –, and the Court ordered the payment of compensation and pecuniary penalties against Mr Marshall and Mr Mitchell. 

Although the employer was not ultimately held liable in this case, this decision carries clear warnings for businesses and reinforces that workplace risk is not confined to employees and that exposure can arise wherever staff interact with others in the court of their work. Employers need to actively manage external risks, particularly in industries where staff regularly interact with clients or external providers.