Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ballina Shire Council v Moore [2023] NSWCA 155 Hearing dates: 22 June 2023 Date of orders: 6 July 2023 Decision date: 06 July 2023 Before: Ward P at [1];
Mitchelmore JA at [2];
Basten AJA at [3]Decision: (1) Allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the District Court entered on 15 December 2022.
(2) In place thereof:
(a) dismiss the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim filed on 10 November 2022, and
(b) order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the trial.
(3) Order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
(4) Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW).
Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – breach of duty – public authority – responsibility for care and management of shared pathway – identifying risk of harm – whether risk not insignificant - duty to pedestrians and cyclists – fall by cyclist in avoiding bollard – precaution of removing remaining bollard of pair – purpose of bollard to create obstacle – whether single bollard had social utility – burden of precautions to avoid similar risks – whether reasonable authority would have taken precaution of removing bollard
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5C, 5F, 5G
Cases Cited: Council of the City of Greater Taree v Wells [2010] NSWCA 147
Tapp v Australian Bushmen’s Campdraft & Rodeo Association Ltd (2022) 273 CLR 454; [2022] HCA 11
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422; [2005] HCA 62
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ballina Shire Council (Appellant)
Diane Margaret Moore (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R Sheldon SC / D Hanna (Appellant)
J Sexton SC / G Hampson (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Appellant)
Tony Love Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00383376 Publication restriction: N/A Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 14 December 2022
- Before:
- Priestley SC, DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2022/00076743
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The respondent (Ms Moore) brought a claim against the appellant, Ballina Shire Council, for breach of its duty of care in failing to remove a single remaining bollard from a shared pathway used by both pedestrians and cyclists. Ms Moore was riding an electric bicycle along the pathway that runs along the north bank of the Richmond River at Ballina. Ms Moore attempted to overtake two pedestrians, who moved left after hearing her ring the bicycle bell, and as she manoeuvred to the right side of the pathway, she noticed a metal bollard about 20cm from the edge of the path. By steering right Ms Moore avoided the pedestrians and the bollard but veered off the path and so steered back to the left, at which time she lost control of the bicycle, fell off and injured her hip.
On 17 March 2022 Ms Moore commenced proceedings in the District Court at Lismore alleging that the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ballina Shire Council v Moore and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWCA 155
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the risk of harm posed by the bollard was "not insignificant," a threshold established by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). This involved assessing whether the Council had identified a foreseeable risk of harm to pedestrians and cyclists and, if so, whether it had taken reasonable precautions to avoid that risk. Specifically, the court considered the social utility of the remaining bollard and the burden of taking precautions, such as its removal, to avoid similar risks.
The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had erred in its assessment of the risk. It reasoned that the purpose of the bollard was to create an obstacle, and while the risk of harm from such an obstacle might be foreseeable, the specific risk of a cyclist falling in the manner described by Mr Moore was not established as "not insignificant." The court concluded that a reasonable authority would not have taken the precaution of removing the bollard, as its social utility in delineating the pathway outweighed the low probability of the specific type of accident occurring. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the District Court's orders were set aside, and Mr Moore's claim was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the District Court entered on 15 December 2022.
(2) In place thereof:
(a) dismiss the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim filed on 10 November 2022, and
(b) order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the trial.
(3) Order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
(4) Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW).
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.