Coffs Harbour City Council v McLeod [2016] NSWCA 94

Coffs Harbour City Council v McLeod [2016] NSWCA 94

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds raised an issue of principle or general public importance and the Council did not show a reasonably clear injustice beyond arguable error. The primary judge's findings that the wet, slimy footpath was a slip hazard, that prior falls and complaints gave the Council knowledge of the risk, and that reasonable precautions such as barricades and night warning lights could have been taken were open on the evidence. The Council's reliance on s 43A failed because the relevant special statutory powers were not pleaded or relied on at trial, and its reliance on s 45 failed because the precautions found by the primary judge were not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in a Slip and Fall Personal Injury Damages Claim / Application for Leave to Appeal From a District Court of New South Wales Civil Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs in this Court.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'slip and Fall on Public Footpath' 'duty of Care and Breach by Council' 'foreseeability and Not Insignificant Risk of Harm' 'statutory Defences for Public Authorities and Roads Authorities' 'assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'economic Loss' 'out of Pocket Expenses']
['torts' 'negligence' 'personal Injury' 'civil Procedure' 'local Government Liability'] ['leave to Appeal' 'slip and Fall on Public Footpath' 'duty of Care and Breach by Council' 'foreseeability and Not Insignificant Risk of Harm' 'statutory Defences for Public Authorities and Roads Authorities' 'assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'economic Loss' 'out of Pocket Expenses']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal in a Slip and Fall Personal Injury Damages Claim / Application for Leave to Appeal From a District Court of New South Wales Civil Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the amount in issue was less than $100,000.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Council breached its duty of care by failing to take precautions against a slip hazard on a wet concrete footpath.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding the risk of harm foreseeable and not insignificant.' 'Whether the Council could rely on statutory defences under s 43A and s 45 of the Civil Liability Act.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in assessing damages for non-economic loss, future economic loss and future out-of-pocket expenses.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds raised an issue of principle or general public importance and the Council did not show a reasonably clear injustice beyond arguable error. The primary judge's findings that the wet, slimy footpath was a slip hazard, that prior falls and complaints gave the Council knowledge of the risk, and that reasonable precautions such as barricades and night warning lights could have been taken were open on the evidence. The Council's reliance on s 43A failed because the relevant special statutory powers were not pleaded or relied on at trial, and its reliance on s 45 failed because the precautions found by the primary judge were not...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs in this Court.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to appeal.' 'The Court notes that although it is accepted by the respondent that there was an error in relation to the award of $40,000 for non-economic loss, the parties are agreed that this figure is not to be disturbed.' "Applicant to pay the respondent's costs in this Court."]