Ballina Shire Council v Moore

Link copied
Case Copied 31 min read

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:
R Sheldon SC / D Hanna (Appellant)
J Sexton SC / G Hampson (Respondent)

Solicitors:
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:

[2022] NSWDC 691

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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] NSWCA 155
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a claim in negligence brought by a cyclist, Mr Moore, against Ballina Shire Council, the authority responsible for the care and management of a shared pathway. Mr Moore sustained injuries when he fell from his bicycle while attempting to avoid a bollard on the pathway. The central dispute revolved around whether the Council had breached its duty of care to users of the pathway by failing to remove the bollard, which Mr Moore alleged presented an unreasonable risk of harm.

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.