In August 2025, the High Court decided that a casino complex was liable for the injuries sustained by a child who was electrocuted by an exposed live electrical wire near the ice rink located at the complex. The casino complex was found to be guilty of gross negligence.
The incident occurred during the festive season
In this judgment, the court held that the two disclaimer notices displayed at the defendant’s premises did not exclude its liability for gross negligence.
The plaintiff was a visitor to the defendant’s holiday resort and sustained injury when she fell into a hole when seeking shelter at a time when there was a sudden
Often ‘gross negligence’ is used as a carve-out from a no-liability clause. The Consumer Protection Act expressly provides that a supplier cannot exclude liability for gross negligence.
Negligence is the deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the particular circumstances. Clearly more than mere negligence is involved when a person
The reasonable precautions clause which commonly appears in policies requires the insured to take reasonable steps to safeguard the insured property or prevent accidents and minimise loss, damage or liability (or variations thereof). The clause most likely requires proof of recklessness on the part of the insured but interestingly, there is no authoritative judgment by
Subject to the provisions of the policy, the fact that a loss or occurrence insured against is caused by the insured’s negligence is irrelevant. This applies to all negligent acts, even those that are grossly negligent. It also holds true for so-called reckless conduct, if the recklessness involved is nothing other than gross negligence.
The