Landmark Decision Upheld: Wollongong City Council v Williams [2021] NSWCA 140

Mar 1, 2024 | Publication

In a significant ruling, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has upheld the decision in the case of Wollongong City Council v Williams [2021] NSWCA 140, marking a pivotal moment in occupiers liability law.

The case centred around a trip and fall incident in a council park, where the plaintiff, a disability worker, accompanied one of his clients to a disabled bathroom. Along the footpath leading to the facility were three single steps, lacking any visual cues or warnings. The plaintiff fell due to the absence of such cues, leading to a legal battle over liability and compensation.

The council appealed the primary liability decision, while the plaintiff cross-appealed regarding contributory negligence findings and the reduction on past economic loss of 10% for vicissitudes.

In a resounding verdict, the appeal was dismissed. Justices McCallum and Simpson concurred with Justice Adamson’s reasoning for dismissing the appeal. However, they allowed the cross-appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence or findings regarding how the plaintiff failed to take reasonable precautions in the circumstances.

Regarding economic loss, the Court found that the trial judge’s reasoning for applying a 10% reduction for vicissitudes was insufficient, raising questions about the adequacy of the decision.

The crux of the case lay in whether the council adequately fulfilled its duty of care. The Court rejected the council’s argument that the plaintiff’s lack of attention caused the fall, affirming the trial judge’s ruling that the council’s negligence in failing to provide clear cues to the steps was the primary cause.

Moreover, the Court highlighted that the plaintiff’s inability to precisely describe the fall mechanism did not undermine his case. There was a reasonable inference that the absence of cues led to the fall, underscoring the council’s responsibility to ensure the safety of park visitors.

The ruling sets a precedent for premises liability cases, emphasising the duty of care owed by councils and property owners to ensure the safety of visitors, particularly those with disabilities. The decision underscores the importance of clear signage and cues to prevent accidents and holds entities accountable for negligence in maintaining safe premises.

This landmark decision serves as a reminder to all councils and property owners of the critical need to prioritise safety measures, particularly in areas frequented by vulnerable individuals.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

7 Ways to Enforce a Judgment

After a judgment is obtained for an amount of money, there are numerous options open to a judgment creditor in relation to how to enforce the judgment (i.e. how to obtain the money which is owed pursuant to the judgment). Option #1: Issue a Bankruptcy Notice If the...

Who Can Bring a Compensation to Relatives Claim?

In the unfortunate event of a loved one's passing due to negligence or wrongful act, the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 in New South Wales outlines the parameters for pursuing compensation on behalf of the deceased. Understanding who has the legal standing to...

10 Myths of Being Sued

If you or your business are sued, there are many myths about how the legal process will pan out.  Here are 10 myths about the legal process – all are incorrect. Myth #1: The matter will definitely go to a hearing Most matters settle before a Judge decides...

How can my business sue someone to recover money?

Lawyers are often asked about the process of recovering money owed as a result of, for instance, a failure to pay for goods or services or a breach of contract. Normally a business (or an individual) will issue a letter of demand as a precursor to suing someone to...

Can a Will be done electronically – not on paper?

Can a Will be valid if it is found on a computer (i.e. not signed with pen and in a hard copy form)? The Supreme Court of South Australia recently examined the validity of an electronic Will created on an iPad and signed using an iPad pen. The decision of In the...

Landmark Decision: Melenewycz v Whitfield [2015] NSWSC 1482

In a significant legal precedent, the New South Wales Supreme Court addressed the applicability of blameless accident provisions in motor accident compensation cases, specifically concerning single-vehicle accidents. The case of Melenewycz v Whitfield [2015] NSWSC...