Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd

The appellant, Alameddine, brought proceedings against the respondent, Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd, following injuries sustained while participating in a quad bike tour. The dispute concerned whether the respondent owed and breached a duty of care to the appellant, and whether the respondent had effectively excluded liability for the appellant's injuries. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the respondent breached its duty of care to the appellant by failing to warn of the risks associated with the quad bike riding activity, particularly in light of sections 5L and 5M of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). The court also considered whether the activity constituted a "dangerous recreational activity" for the purposes of the Act, and whether the respondent had provided a sufficient warning. Furthermore, the court examined the efficacy of the exclusion clause in the contract for services, and whether it was preserved by section 5N of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). Finally, the court considered whether the appellant was a "consumer" for the purposes of section 60 of the *Australian Consumer Law*, and whether an entitlement to compensation under the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth) precluded an award of damages for non-economic loss under the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW).

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent had breached its duty of care to the appellant. The court reasoned that the risk of injury from the quad bike tour was not an "obvious risk" in the context of section 5L of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), and that the warning provided by the respondent was not sufficiently specific or comprehensive to discharge its duty of care under section 5M. The court also determined that the exclusion clause in the contract was not effective to exclude liability for the respondent's negligence, as it did not meet the requirements of section 5N of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). The court further held that the appellant qualified as a "consumer" under the *Australian Consumer Law*, and that an award of damages for non-economic loss was permissible.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment and orders of the first instance court were set aside, and judgment was entered for the appellant in the sum of $136,075. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.