What happened
On 27 April 2017, the pedestrian alleged that a temporary ramp outside a shopping centre slipped as he stepped on it during footpath works. The council had responsibility for securing ramps and had received two earlier safety complaints. The claim against the contractor had resolved before the court separately determined the council's immunity defence.
The issues
Section 45 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) required examination of the council's actual knowledge of the particular risk. The dispute was whether earlier complaints concerned different ramps and wheelchair hazards, or supplied knowledge that unsecured portable ramps in this confined work area could move.
The court's decision
The District Court upheld immunity and dismissed the council claim with costs, finding inadequate proof of actual knowledge of the pleaded movement risk. On 7 June 2022, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Knowledge that the portable ramps used in this particular area were unstable unless secured was sufficient, so the dismissal and costs orders were set aside and the remaining issues remitted.
What this case shows
The trial ruling must be read with its reversal. The appeal explained that actual knowledge of a particular risk did not require knowledge of every detail of the causal pathway. The location, ramp type and nature of the reported instability supplied the necessary factual specificity.
Why another case may differ
Defeating immunity did not establish final negligence liability or damages. Duty, breach and other remaining issues were remitted, and the checked judgments do not establish the eventual outcome or the contractor settlement amount. Neither the 2021 dismissal nor the 2022 appeal success is presented as the final compensation result.
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? →