Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bright [2015] NSWCA 17

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bright [2015] NSWCA 17

The plaintiff did not establish on the balance of probabilities that water was on the floor before she slipped. Her evidence showed only a possibility, and the CCTV footage and other evidence were inconsistent with the presence of pre-existing water. Further, the trial judge did not identify any failure by either appellant to take reasonable care, particularly given findings that Coles had an adequate inspection system and that the relevant personnel were conscientious. The District Court judgment could not be sustained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Tort Negligence Proceedings Arising From a Slip and Fall in a Supermarket / Appeal From District Court Orders Made by Blanch CJDC on 3 March 2014
Outcome
Appeals allowed; District Court orders set aside; judgment entered for the defendants; costs and repayment orders made; respondent granted certificates under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall in Supermarket' 'proof on Balance of Probabilities' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'cctv Evidence' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings']
['torts' 'negligence' 'civil Procedure'] ['slip and Fall in Supermarket' 'proof on Balance of Probabilities' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'cctv Evidence' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings']

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

Appeal in Tort Negligence Proceedings Arising From a Slip and Fall in a Supermarket / Appeal From District Court Orders Made by Blanch CJDC on 3 March 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff established on the balance of probabilities that she slipped in water on the floor before her fall.' "Whether CCTV footage and other evidence were inconsistent with the trial judge's finding that water caused the fall." 'If water was on the floor, whether either or both appellants breached a duty of care by failing to remove it.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish on the balance of probabilities that water was on the floor before she slipped. Her evidence showed only a possibility, and the CCTV footage and other evidence were inconsistent with the presence of pre-existing water. Further, the trial judge did not identify any failure by either appellant to take reasonable care, particularly given findings that Coles had an adequate inspection system and that the relevant personnel were conscientious. The District Court judgment could not be sustained.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; District Court orders set aside; judgment entered for the defendants; costs and repayment orders made; respondent granted certificates under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951.

Orders

  • ['Matter No. 2014/89996: Allow the appeal.' 'Matter No. 2014/89996: With respect to District Court proceedings number 2013/42208, set aside the orders made by his Honour Chief Judge Blanch on 3 March 2014.' 'Matter No. 2014/89996: Enter Judgment for the First and Second Defendants against the Plaintiff.' "Matter No....