Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) [2023] NSWSC 1076

Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) [2023] NSWSC 1076

Both defendants were liable in negligence for failing to provide and maintain a safe accommodation environment: the plaintiff tripped on a missing non-slip strip that created a safety hazard which should have been detected by adequate inspection and maintenance. The failure of both defendants to prevent or remedy the missing strip over a substantial period constituted a breach of their duty, and there was no relevant contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Damages for gratuitous domestic care were not recoverable because the applicable law (English law as at 1968, adopted in Nauru) did not recognise such a head of damage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages' 'conflict of Laws' 'applicable Law' 'psychological Injury' 'loss of Earning Capacity']
['tort Law' 'personal Injury'] ['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages' 'conflict of Laws' 'applicable Law' 'psychological Injury' 'loss of Earning Capacity']

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

Personal Injury Negligence / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What caused the plaintiff's fall and injury?" 'Were the defendants (Broadspectrum and/or Wilson Security) in breach of their duty of care to the plaintiff?' 'Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence?' "What is the extent of the plaintiff's injury and loss?" 'Is there an entitlement to damages for gratuitous domestic care under the applicable law (Nauru)?']

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants were liable in negligence for failing to provide and maintain a safe accommodation environment: the plaintiff tripped on a missing non-slip strip that created a safety hazard which should have been detected by adequate inspection and maintenance. The failure of both defendants to prevent or remedy the missing strip over a substantial period constituted a breach of their duty, and there was no relevant contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Damages for gratuitous domestic care were not recoverable because the applicable law (English law as at 1968, adopted in Nauru) did not recognise such a head of damage.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,086,100.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $1,086,100.' "Defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." 'Liberty to either party to apply to the Court for any different costs order.']