Butler-Gilpin, Lynette v Cleveland Resorts Limited and Vanguard Security Limited

Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants were joint or concurrent tortfeasors-Classification of the defendants as joint or concurrent tortfeasors is ultimately not significant in this case-Critical factor in determining whether settlement with 1st defendant bars continuation of the claim against the 2nd defendant is the nature and intendment of the settlement-No evidence to substantiate that settlement was in partial not full satisfaction of claim-Basic rule/principle, that settlement extinguishes claim against other tortfeasor, which prevents the injustice of double recovery, is not displaced-2nd defendant's security guards presence based on contract between the 1st and 2nd defendants which created and delineated their duties-Security guards have no general duty to prevent crime over and above that of ordinary private citizens-Absence of privity of contract between the claimant and the 2nd defendant-Tortious liability in the circumstances of this case cannot exist independently of, or exceed that based on contract-Discontinuance against 1st defendant and the absence of privity of contract between the claimant and the 2nd defendant fatal to the claim against the 2nd defendant