Shvarts v Scentre Shopping Management Pty Ltd and Anor [2018] NSWDC 154

Shvarts v Scentre Shopping Management Pty Ltd and Anor [2018] NSWDC 154

The plaintiff fell because of a slippery gel-like substance on a heavily trafficked mall floor. The cleaning contract required inspections of common mall areas every 20 minutes, but CCTV showed no inspection for almost 48 minutes before the fall and the cleaner's report stating a 15 to 18 minute interval was incorrect. On the probabilities, an inspection and cleaning carried out in accordance with the specified program would have detected the substance and avoided the injury. Although both defendants were found liable in negligence in the reasoning, the first defendant had engaged the second defendant, a cleaning contractor holding itself out as competent, for the express purpose of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant in an amount to be calculated by the parties; judgment entered for the first defendant in respect of the plaintiff's claim against it; costs ordered against the second defendant, including indemnity costs from 22 March 2018.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall in Shopping Centre' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'causation' 'cleaning Contractor Liability' 'non Economic Loss' 'economic Loss' 'domestic Assistance' 'indemnity Costs']
['torts' 'negligence' 'personal Injury' 'damages' 'occupiers Liability'] ['slip and Fall in Shopping Centre' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'causation' 'cleaning Contractor Liability' 'non Economic Loss' 'economic Loss' 'domestic Assistance' 'indemnity Costs']

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 Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff slipped on a gel-like substance at Westfield Eastgardens and suffered compensable injury.' 'Whether the first defendant and/or second defendant breached a duty of care by failing to inspect and clean the common mall area adequately.' "Whether a proper inspection and cleaning system would probably have detected the substance and avoided the plaintiff's fall." 'Whether the first defendant should bear liability despite engaging the second defendant as cleaning contractor.' 'What damages should be awarded for non-economic loss, economic loss, care, domestic services and medical expenses.' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs after an offer of compromise dated 22 March 2018.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff fell because of a slippery gel-like substance on a heavily trafficked mall floor. The cleaning contract required inspections of common mall areas every 20 minutes, but CCTV showed no inspection for almost 48 minutes before the fall and the cleaner's report stating a 15 to 18 minute interval was incorrect. On the probabilities, an inspection and cleaning carried out in accordance with the specified program would have detected the substance and avoided the injury. Although both defendants were found liable in negligence in the reasoning, the first defendant had engaged the second defendant, a cleaning contractor holding itself out as competent, for the express purpose of...

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant in an amount to be calculated by the parties; judgment entered for the first defendant in respect of the plaintiff's claim against it; costs ordered against the second defendant, including indemnity costs from 22 March 2018.

Orders

  • ['Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the amount to be calculated by the parties and submitted by way of an agreed consent order to be filed with the registrar.' 'In respect of the liability of the first and second defendant, judgment is entered for the first defendant in respect of the claim made against it by...