What happened
The plaintiff left her seat during a performance at Newcastle's Civic Playhouse on 9 April 2021 to visit the toilet. Following light from the exit, she crossed a platform, missed two descending steps and fell, partially tearing her right Achilles tendon. The council relied on glowing stair-edge strips, but the court inferred that the ageing strips had not retained sufficient charge during the performance.
The issues
The issues were whether the steps were visible during the show, whether reasonable inspection would have revealed the risk, and whether the plaintiff was careless in forgetting steps she had used on entry. Later photographs showed glowing strips, but there was no evidence of how long the house lights had been off when the photographs were taken.
The court's decision
The council was negligent because it could have checked whether the strips remained effective throughout a performance. The unfamiliar and unusual stepped layout supported the rejection of contributory negligence. On damages, however, the court accepted medical evidence of recovery to the pre-accident level and rejected gratuitous care because the required duration and weekly hours had not been proved.
Understanding the figures
The historical AUD judgment was 49,034.05: past earnings of 25,930.96, associated superannuation of 3,111.72, a further earning-loss buffer of 5,000, past expenses of 694.26, non-economic loss of 7,000 and equipment provision of 7,297.11. Although the coversheet says 44,034.05, the operative reasons at [98]–[99] and the later costs judgment agree on 49,034.05. Costs were separate, and indemnity costs were later refused.
What this case shows
An inspection with the lights on, or a photograph taken soon after they are switched off, may not establish safe access during a show. The case illustrates the importance of checking safety features under the conditions in which patrons actually use the venue. Liability did not remove the need to prove accident-related disability and the extent of family assistance.
Why another case may differ
The court considered the absence of earlier reported falls and expressly recognised s 5C(c), under which later repairs do not themselves establish liability. Its conclusion depended on the evidence about the old strips, witnesses, photographs and layout. The care claim failed for lack of proof of at least six hours weekly for six consecutive months; shared household work was not all attributable to the plaintiff's injury.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →