Bevillesta Pty Ltd v Liberty International Insurance Co
Case
•
[2009] NSWCA 16
•17 February 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bevillesta Pty Ltd v Liberty International Insurance Co [2009] NSWCA 16
[2009] NSWCA 16
17 February 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bevillesta Pty Ltd (the occupier) sought contribution from Liberty International Insurance Co (the insurer) of its cleaning contractor, following a finding of liability against Bevillesta for injuries sustained by a shopper who slipped on a squashed orange at a shopping centre. The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, heard the appeal concerning the extent of the cleaning contractor's liability.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the cleaning contractor owed a duty of care to the plaintiff shopper, and if so, what the scope of that duty was, particularly in light of the terms of the cleaning contract between the occupier and the contractor.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the cleaning contractor owed a duty of care to persons who might frequent the shopping centre, including the plaintiff. This duty arose from the contractor's undertaking to perform cleaning services, which created a foreseeable risk of injury to shoppers if those services were performed negligently. The scope of this duty was not limited by the specific terms of the cleaning contract, but rather encompassed the reasonable performance of the cleaning obligations undertaken, which included taking steps to prevent foreseeable hazards such as the one that caused the plaintiff's injury. The Court found that the contractor's negligence in failing to adequately clean the area was a breach of this duty.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the cleaning contractor owed a duty of care to the plaintiff shopper, and if so, what the scope of that duty was, particularly in light of the terms of the cleaning contract between the occupier and the contractor.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the cleaning contractor owed a duty of care to persons who might frequent the shopping centre, including the plaintiff. This duty arose from the contractor's undertaking to perform cleaning services, which created a foreseeable risk of injury to shoppers if those services were performed negligently. The scope of this duty was not limited by the specific terms of the cleaning contract, but rather encompassed the reasonable performance of the cleaning obligations undertaken, which included taking steps to prevent foreseeable hazards such as the one that caused the plaintiff's injury. The Court found that the contractor's negligence in failing to adequately clean the area was a breach of this duty.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Breach
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Balassone v Victorian YMCA Community Programming Pty Ltd; Victorian WorkCover Authority v Nillumbik Shire Council [2015] VCC 766
Cases Citing This Decision
35
Libra Collaroy Pty Ltd v Bhide
[2017] NSWCA 196
Kellys Property Management Services Pty Ltd v Anjoshco Pty Ltd trading as McDonalds BP Chinderah
[2016] NSWCA 341
Gulic v Boral Transport Ltd
[2016] NSWCA 269
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
1
Luxton v Vines
[1952] HCA 19
Luxton v Vines
[1952] HCA 19
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery
[2007] HCA 6