132 Collingwood concerned the aftermath of a fight which had broken out in a hotel and which was followed by a further fight in which a bystander, also a patron at the hotel, who had come to the assistance of the injured man, had herself been injured. The level of staffing was not an issue (see [32]) and the question was whether the circumstances were such as to have required greater precautions because of an apparent risk of violence following a fracas in which a man had been injured. Basten JA (with whom Handley JA agreed) said at [21] that the parties had agreed that the relevant principles governing their potential liability in negligence for the deliberate acts of third parties were those explained in Wagstaff v Haslam [2007] NSWCA 28 and Spedding v Nobles [2007] NSWCA 29. He went on to say:
"[21] … These cases held that someone in the position of a hotel manager or licensee may be liable for injury to a patron caused by the deliberate and unlawful act of another patron. The duty which gives rise to this liability depends upon the capacity, and indeed the statutory obligation, of the hotel manager or licensee to control conduct on licensed premises, pursuant to ss 103 and 125 of the Liquor Act 1982 (NSW) . These provisions not only permit the licensee to 'turn out, or cause to be turned out' any person who is intoxicated, and to use reasonable force to that end, but also impose an obligation on a licensee not to permit intoxication on licensed premises, an offence which is deemed to be committed by the presence of a person who is intoxicated on the premises, unless the licensee has asked the person to leave the premises, sought police assistance to remove the person and refused to serve the person alcohol: s 125. As will be seen shortly, there was a complaint that the relevant employee of the hotel believed that a number of patrons were sufficiently affected by alcohol to justify refusal of service, yet no steps were taken to eject those persons from the premises, until the relevant outbreaks of violence. However, it should be emphasised there is no statutory cause of action for breach of the Liquor Act, if such a breach occurred. Rather, the relevant duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of patrons, depends upon proof that the hotel manager or licensee knew or ought to have known facts requiring intervention to protect patrons and, in those circumstances, failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the plaintiff from a foreseeable risk of harm: see, generally, Wagstaff [2007] NSWCA 28 at [28]-[37]."