Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd v Taouk [2012] NSWCA 342

Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd v Taouk [2012] NSWCA 342

Both Wilson and JLL breached their respective duties of care; Wilson should have conducted at least hourly inspections of the car park surface to detect and address hazards such as spillages, which as occupier it was best-placed to do; JLL, being on notice of the faulty alarm system, failed to institute interim inspections of the grease trap, thus breaching its duty. On the evidence, hourly inspections by either would more probably than not have prevented the accident. Apportionment of liability at 70% to Wilson and 30% to JLL was not in error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Liability and Apportionment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'collateral Issues With Evidence' 'amendment and Joinder of Parties' 'apportionment of Liability']
['tort Law' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'collateral Issues With Evidence' 'amendment and Joinder of Parties' 'apportionment of Liability']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Liability and Apportionment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the car park operator (Wilson) and building manager (JLL) owed and breached a duty of care to avoid risk of slipping in the car park by failing to have reasonable inspection systems in place.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in granting leave to amend to join JLL as a party and in rejecting tender of certain documentary evidence.' 'Appropriateness of system of inspections by Wilson, and whether such a system would have prevented the accident.' 'Proper apportionment of liability between Wilson and JLL.']

Ratio Decidendi

Both Wilson and JLL breached their respective duties of care; Wilson should have conducted at least hourly inspections of the car park surface to detect and address hazards such as spillages, which as occupier it was best-placed to do; JLL, being on notice of the faulty alarm system, failed to institute interim inspections of the grease trap, thus breaching its duty. On the evidence, hourly inspections by either would more probably than not have prevented the accident. Apportionment of liability at 70% to Wilson and 30% to JLL was not in error.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Applicant's summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed." 'Time for appellant to file amended notice of appeal extended by seven days.' 'Appellant to file and serve amended notice of appeal within seven days.' "Appellant's amended notice of appeal dismissed." "Second respondent's notice of appeal dismissed."...