Summary: The Case Of Cole V. South Tweed Heads Rugby Club

Introduction
The case of Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby Club [2004] HCA 29 pertains to a dispute concerning the civil contravention of negligence and a breach of duty of care, specifically in regards to the liability of licensed premises for injuries to patrons wounded by reason of their own inebriation. This division involves Cole: the appellant and plaintiff and the South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club and Another as the respondents and defendants.

Procedural History
Cole initially commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales claiming damages for negligence from the defending parties of Lawrence and the South Tweed Rugby League Football Club. At first instance, the primary judge found Cole contributorily negligent

From the outset she proceeded in consuming large quantities of wine on the premises. Whilst the Club supplied some alcohol to Cole, it is certain that she also had access to drinks originally supplied to others. Between 12:20 and 12:30 pm, Cole purchased a bottle of wine from the bar with no issues regarding her sobriety and demeanour. Following this transaction, there was no supply of alcohol to the plaintiff by the Club at any time. Cole, seeking a further supply from the Club was refused service due to “drunken” and “indecent” behaviour . The manager thus gravitated towards this state of insobriety and offered forms of transportation home, which were rejected. Following this, Cole sought sanctuary in the company of two males stating that they would “look after her” . At approximately 6:20 pm, a vehicle driven by the second respondent, Lawrence, struck Cole. The accident resulted in serious

Whether section 44A and 67A of the Registered Clubs Act 1976 (NSW) can be applied with relevance to the dispute and what constitutes the Club’s duty of care when dealing with intoxicated patrons
Decisions
There was a two to one majority vote to dismiss Cole’s appeal with costs, overturning the Supreme Court’s decision.
Rationes decidendim, including precedents used
The following findings were central to the determination of this case:
1. Whether the respondent breached its duty of care.
i. by failing to provide adequate supervision
R v O’Connor is applied and reinforces Gleeson CJ’s ratio: even on the assumption that a duty of care was owed, it is decided that any duty of care owed by the Club to Cole was discharged through the offers of transport .
The degree of supervision requested was deemed superfluous. ii. by failing to moderate the consumption of alcohol
The Court of Appeal found that there was no supply of alcohol by the respondent to the appellant at any time after 12.30 pm, some six hours before her injury , thus the rule in the Registered Clubs Act 1976 (NSW) (s 44A) cannot be so impermissibly extended as to synthesise non-existent evidence.

2. If the respondent breached its duty of