Woolworths Limited v Strong & Anor [2010] NSWCA 282

Woolworths Limited v Strong & Anor [2010] NSWCA 282

The appeal was allowed because, although the Appellant had no operative cleaning system for the sidewalk sales area and could readily be found to have breached its duty of care, the First Respondent did not prove factual causation under section 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002. There was no evidence that the chip had been on the floor long enough to be detected and removed by a reasonable system of periodic inspection and cleaning, even assuming inspections every 15 minutes. The evidence supported only that a reasonable system may have prevented the fall, not that it was more likely than not that it would have done so.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Negligence Slip and Fall Personal Injury Proceedings / Appeal From the District Court Judgment of Robison J Dated 28 August 2009
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and costs orders below set aside; proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
['causation' 'factual Causation' 'slip and Fall' 'occupiers Liability' 'cleaning Systems' 'onus of Proof' 'costs' 'restitution']
['torts' 'negligence' 'civil Liability' 'personal Injury'] ['causation' 'factual Causation' 'slip and Fall' 'occupiers Liability' 'cleaning Systems' 'onus of Proof' 'costs' 'restitution']

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

Appeal in Negligence Slip and Fall Personal Injury Proceedings / Appeal From the District Court Judgment of Robison J Dated 28 August 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First Respondent established causation of damage under sections 5D and 5E of the Civil Liability Act 2002.' "Whether the absence of an operative cleaning system in the sidewalk sales area was a necessary condition of the First Respondent's fall." 'Whether the evidence supported an inference that the chip or grease had been on the floor long enough to be detected and removed by a reasonable cleaning system.' 'What costs orders should be made in respect of the Second Respondent if the appeal succeeded.' 'Whether restitution should be ordered for any amount paid under the judgment below.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because, although the Appellant had no operative cleaning system for the sidewalk sales area and could readily be found to have breached its duty of care, the First Respondent did not prove factual causation under section 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002. There was no evidence that the chip had been on the floor long enough to be detected and removed by a reasonable system of periodic inspection and cleaning, even assuming inspections every 15 minutes. The evidence supported only that a reasonable system may have prevented the fall, not that it was more likely than not that it would have done so.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and costs orders below set aside; proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the judgment and all orders for costs in the court below.' 'In lieu thereof order that the proceedings be dismissed and that the First Respondent pay the costs of the Appellant and the Second Respondent in the court below.' "Appellant to pay Second Respondent's costs of the appeal,...