Faruk v Sydney Airport Corporation Limited & Asset Link Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 206

Faruk v Sydney Airport Corporation Limited & Asset Link Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 206

Both defendants breached their respective duties of care to the plaintiff by failing to respond to a foreseeable and not insignificant risk posed by the continuously wet and unhygienic floor in the domestic taxi rank toilets, and by failing to implement adequate precautions such as slip testing and more frequent cleaning, as required under contractual and statutory obligations. The plaintiff was injured in circumstances where neither contributory negligence nor exclusion for obvious risk applied. Liability is apportioned equally between the defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants.
Legal Topics
['negligence' "occupiers' Liability" 'contractual Obligations' 'damages' 'apportionment' 'contributory Negligence']
['tort' 'personal Injury'] ['negligence' "occupiers' Liability" 'contractual Obligations' 'damages' 'apportionment' 'contributory Negligence']

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 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Duty of care owed by defendants' 'Whether breach of duty occurred' 'Foreseeability and significance of risk' 'Appropriateness of cleaning regime and precautions' 'Contribution and apportionment between tortfeasors' 'Contributory negligence' 'Quantum of damages']

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants breached their respective duties of care to the plaintiff by failing to respond to a foreseeable and not insignificant risk posed by the continuously wet and unhygienic floor in the domestic taxi rank toilets, and by failing to implement adequate precautions such as slip testing and more frequent cleaning, as required under contractual and statutory obligations. The plaintiff was injured in circumstances where neither contributory negligence nor exclusion for obvious risk applied. Liability is apportioned equally between the defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants.' 'Liability for payment of the judgment sum apportioned 50% against the first defendant and 50% against the second defendant, pursuant to s 5 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW).' "The defendants' cross-claims otherwise...