Study the following case extract: AUSTRALIAN SAFEWAY STORES PTY LTD v ZALUZNA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA MASON, WILSON, BRENNAN, DEANE and DAWSON JJ 36 November 1986, 10 March 1987 - Canberra Negligence - Duty of care - Duty of occupier to invitee - Occupier's liability - Personal injuries - Plaintiff slipped on wet floor - Whether special duty of care owed to invitee - Whether general duty of care. The respondent was injured when she slipped in the appellant's supermarket on a floor which had become wet as a result of persons entering from the rain outside. The trial judge applied the statement of the duty of care owed by an occupier to an invitee formulated in Indermaur v Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274 and found that, it being a rainy day, the moisture on the floor did not constitute an "unusual danger" within that formulation. Accordingly, he dismissed the respondent's action. The respondent appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the trial judge should have considered whether the appellant owed a general duty of care to the respondent in addition to the special duty of care owed to an invitee. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria allowed the appeal on this ground and an appeal from that decision was taken to the High Court. Held, per Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ, dismissing the appeal: The duty which an occupier of land owed to an invitee was properly to be seen as the ordinary common law duty to take reasonable care. Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614; 56 ALR 417; Papantonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985) 156 CLR 7; 57 ALR 1, followed. Indermaur v Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274, explained. London Graving Dock Co Ltd v Horton [1951] AC 737, disapproved. What was reasonable would vary with the circumstances of the plaintiff's entry upon the premises. Observations on the nature of the so-called special duties resting on an occupier of land with respect to persons entering as licensees or trespassers and in other circumstances. San Sebastian pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (2986) 68 ALR 161; Cook v Cook (1986) 61 ALJR25; 68 ALR 353, referred to. Appeal This was an appeal from the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria allowing an appeal from the decision of a single judge of the court and ordering a new trial. The trial judge had dismissed the plaintiff's action. J E Barnard QC and J G Meagher for the appellant. D J Ashley QC and P F O'Dwyer for the respondent. Now answer the following questions: Which court is this decision reported from? Is this a matter heard at first instance? Who is the appellant? Who is the respondent? What was the decision of the court? Which judge(s) comprised the court? Is this a civil or a criminal matter