What happened
On 30 October 2016, a gangway connecting a council wharf to a pontoon detached and Connolly fell into the water. The council had carried out a detailed inspection in July. The post-incident investigation and photographs of the component showed a missing retaining nut without evidence that the pin or bolt had sheared.
The issues
The principal issue was whether the collapse resulted from negligent maintenance or recent interference by someone else. The Court considered what inspection frequency was reasonable and separately examined whether the ongoing physical and psychological consequences claimed were attributable to this incident.
The court's decision
The Court found a duty of care but no established breach. It accepted recent removal of the nut followed by detachment over tidal cycles, and did not regard daily or alternate-day inspections as reasonable on the evidence. Judgment went to the council, with costs against the plaintiff unless submissions justified a different order.
Understanding the figures
No damages were awarded because liability was not established. The discussion of non-economic loss and receipts for property loss was a conditional assessment. It should not be presented as compensation recovered or as a statement of current statutory limits.
What this case shows
Failure of a public asset does not by itself establish negligent management. Evidence about when the component disappeared and how the gangway failed was decisive, including whether a more frequent inspection would realistically have detected the problem.
Why another case may differ
This application of the Civil Liability Act 2002 depended on the inspection evidence and the likely failure mechanism. It does not determine a case involving a longstanding defect or earlier warnings. The Court attributed the later toe amputation to a pre-existing condition, and its conditional damages discussion did not result in an award.
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? →