Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority & Anor v Perrett & Anor [2010] NSWCA 160

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority & Anor v Perrett & Anor [2010] NSWCA 160

The risk of falling on the steps was not obvious to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, given the lack of visual cues, uniform tiling, inadequate signage placement, and presence of other people. The appellants breached their duty of care by failing to install contrasting edging and to reposition the sign. These measures would have reasonably prevented the injury. No contributory negligence was established since the plaintiff was entitled to expect a smooth surface and did not act unreasonably.

Parties
First Appellant: Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority; Second Appellant: Darling Harbour Convention and Exhibition Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Ian Douglas Perrett; Second Respondent: Wine & Vine Personnel Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Risk Not Obvious
Negligence Occupier's Liability Breach of Duty Risk Not Obvious

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority

First Appellant

Darling Harbour Convention and Exhibition Pty Ltd

Second Appellant

Ian Douglas Perrett

First Respondent

Wine & Vine Personnel Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the risk of harm from the steps was obvious within the meaning of s 5F of the Civil Liability Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the appellants breached their duty of care to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence should be found against the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of falling on the steps was not obvious to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, given the lack of visual cues, uniform tiling, inadequate signage placement, and presence of other people. The appellants breached their duty of care by failing to install contrasting edging and to reposition the sign. These measures would have reasonably prevented the injury. No contributory negligence was established since the plaintiff was entitled to expect a smooth surface and did not act unreasonably.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs