Shinnaoui v Perron Investment Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] NSWDC 54

Shinnaoui v Perron Investment Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] NSWDC 54

The risk of tripping on the raised kerb was obvious within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and did not require a warning. The plaintiff was familiar with the car park and failed to keep a proper lookout. The illumination and maintenance were reasonable and compliant with standards. The plaintiff failed to establish negligence on the part of the defendants, and accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Fedaa Shinnaoui; First Defendant: Perron Investment Pty Ltd t/as Campbelltown Mall; Second Defendant: Jones Lang Lasalle (NSW) Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury (negligence) / Trial Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants; plaintiff’s claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Obvious Risk, Duty of Care, Assessment of Damages, Contributory Negligence
Torts Occupier's Liability Personal Injury Damages Negligence Obvious Risk Duty of Care Assessment of Damages +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fedaa Shinnaoui

Plaintiff

Perron Investment Pty Ltd t/as Campbelltown Mall

First Defendant

Jones Lang Lasalle (NSW) Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury (negligence) / Trial Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the raised concrete kerbing constituted an obvious risk under the Civil Liability Act 2002.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff as occupiers and manager of the car park.
  3. 3 Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of tripping on the raised kerb was obvious within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and did not require a warning. The plaintiff was familiar with the car park and failed to keep a proper lookout. The illumination and maintenance were reasonable and compliant with standards. The plaintiff failed to establish negligence on the part of the defendants, and accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants; plaintiff’s claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Verdict and judgment for the defendants.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered.