What happened
The accident occurred on 31 January 2020 in a cafe at a council-operated leisure centre. CCTV showed the child approach a table about 1.097 metres high, with a tabletop wider than its base, before it toppled; she sustained a 10–12 centimetre forehead and anterior-scalp laceration requiring repair under general anaesthetic. The council had used four such tables for years without a specific stability assessment and bolted the remaining three to the floor after the incident.
The issues
The liability questions were whether the council ought to have known of the risk that a child might pull or climb on the table, whether that risk was not insignificant, and whether a reasonable occupier would have fixed or removed the tables. On damages, the dispute extended from permanent scarring and emotional consequences to whether a child could receive a buffer for possible future labour-market disadvantage.
The court's decision
The District Court found breach and causation, relying on the unchallenged stability evidence, the presence of young children, the seriousness of a toppling injury and the minimal burden of fixing or removing the tables. It awarded $112,500 for non-economic loss, $12,800 for future treatment and $50,000 for future economic loss, totalling $175,300; in Randwick City Council v Wunderwald [2026] NSWCA 116, the Court of Appeal upheld liability and the first two components but set aside the economic-loss buffer, substituting judgment for $125,300.
Understanding the figures
The final historical AUD judgment was $125,300: $112,500 for non-economic loss and $12,800 for future psychological treatment and scar revision remained, while the trial award of $50,000 for future economic loss was set aside on appeal.
What this case shows
The case shows that an accident-free history is not decisive where heavy furniture is readily toppled, children regularly use the area and a simple precaution is available. The later appeal also makes clear that even a modest future-economic-loss buffer requires evidence and stated assumptions satisfying s 13 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), not a general possibility of later disadvantage.
Why another case may differ
Liability turned on this table’s construction, the CCTV, unchallenged expert evidence, frequent child use and the low burden of precaution. The 2026 appeal identified possible weaknesses in the expert calculations but decided the case on the basis on which the council had litigated at trial; the final $125,300 judgment should not be treated as including costs, interest or proof of the amount ultimately received.
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? →