What happened

On 23 April 2016, the plaintiff entered Terminal 2 after long-haul flight duties and slipped on water in a common thoroughfare beside a cafe entrance. A tall yellow warning cone stood between the cafe and seating area, and CCTV showed her pass between the cone and a delivery trolley before looking away and falling. She suffered a fractured right femur and other injuries, but the lease placed responsibility for the common walkway on the airport operator and its cleaning contractor.

The issues

The issues were whether the cafe's lease, delivery activity or work-health-and-safety obligations gave it a duty or management responsibility over the common thoroughfare. The court also had to address the plaintiff's late theory that cafe staff created the hazard by wet-mopping, whether that theory was pleaded or proved, and whether the cone adequately warned of the wet floor.

The court's decision

The court held that the cafe tenancy ended at the kiosk walls and that the airport operator and cleaning contractor, not the cafe, were responsible for the common walkway. Wet-mopping was speculative and, if it occurred, was more likely performed by the cleaner. The cafe therefore obtained a verdict and costs; the court's calculation that hypothetical damages would have been AUD 127,501.83 before a 70% reduction was not an award.

Understanding the figures

No damages were awarded against the cafe because the claim was dismissed. The court's AUD 127,501.83 gross assessment and AUD 38,250.55 figure after hypothetical 70% contributory negligence were not payment orders. The separately mentioned AUD 70,000 was not compensation ordered against this defendant; the later costs judgment described it as agreed legal costs and disbursements in the resolution involving the cleaning contractor.

What this case shows

The decision shows that physical proximity between a business and an accident site does not itself establish occupation, control or a duty over a common area. Lease boundaries, contractual cleaning responsibilities, actual business activity and proof of hazard creation must be kept distinct, and a new theory raised at the end of trial may fail where it was neither pleaded nor fairly available to answer.

Why another case may differ

The judgment determined only the claim against the cafe; the proceeding against the cleaning contractor had already been resolved separately. AUD 127,501.83 and AUD 38,250.55 were hypothetical calculations if the liability conclusion were wrong, not damages awarded to the plaintiff. The later No.2 decision changed only the costs basis after a rejected offer and did not alter the merits; different lease, control and CCTV evidence may produce a different 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? →