What happened

In February 2015, the plaintiff slipped on a gel-like substance in a busy walkway at Eastgardens Shopping Centre, injuring her right knee and lower back. CCTV showed a cleaner's cart at the location around 1:32 pm, but no inspection at the contractually required 20-minute interval before the fall at about 2:20 pm. Although the plaintiff had pre-existing ankylosing spondylitis, the Court accepted accident-related lower-back pain distinct from, or aggravating, that condition and also accepted depression.

The issues

The Court had to decide whether compliance with a reasonable inspection system would probably have detected the substance and prevented the fall, and how responsibility should be allocated between the shopping-centre operator and its specialist cleaning contractor. Quantum required separation of the pre-existing spinal condition and maternity-related factors from accident effects on work, household assistance and the plaintiff's capacity to care for her child.

The court's decision

Although there was no direct evidence of when the substance was deposited, the Court found that an inspection at the agreed 20-minute interval would probably have detected it in the heavily trafficked mall. The reasons referred to negligence by both defendants, but the orders entered judgment for the shopping-centre operator on the plaintiff's claim and placed responsibility and the relevant costs on the specialist cleaner because of its contractual failure. The Court did not state a final damages total, directing the parties to calculate two years of future economic loss and superannuation and submit an agreed consent order.

Understanding the figures

The Court allowed historical components of AUD 110,250 for non-economic loss, AUD 77,350 past economic loss, AUD 10,367 past superannuation, AUD 27,239 past care, AUD 73,000 for past loss of capacity to provide domestic services to a child, AUD 5,267 agreed past medical expenses and a AUD 15,000 future-treatment buffer. Future economic loss and superannuation were to be calculated by the parties for a two-year period, so the judgment itself states no final total.

What this case shows

The case shows how CCTV and a specific contractual inspection interval may prove breach and causation even when the precise time a contaminant appeared is unknown. It also illustrates that engaging a specialist does not automatically answer every occupier-duty question, while the contractor's failure may be decisive to the allocation of responsibility and costs between defendants.

Why another case may differ

The judgment does not contain the completed final total or the later consent order, so the stated components must not be added and presented as the final amount paid. Its reasoning about both defendants must be read with the formal order in favour of the operator, and the result does not establish that an occupier is generally absolved whenever cleaning is outsourced.

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? →