CITATION: Brannigan v Westfield & Ors [2007] NSWDC 99 HEARING DATE(S): 16/04/07 - 19/4/07
JUDGMENT DATE:
2 May 2007JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Goldring DCJ DECISION: Verdict for the plaintiff against the first and third defendants in the sum of $588,125. Dismiss cross-claim. CATCHWORDS: Negligence - occupier's liability - duty of care - causation LEGISLATION CITED: Workers' Compensation Act 1987
Civil Liability Act 2002CASES CITED: Hampton Court Pty Limited v Crooks (1957) 97 CLR 367
Brady v Girvan Bros Pty Limited (1986) 7 NSWLR 241
Brown v Target Australia Pty Limited (1994) 37 SASR 145
Sleiman v Franklin Food Stores Pty Limited (1989) Aust Torts Rep 80-266
Griffin v Coles Myer Ltd (1991) Aust Torts Rep 81-109
Kelly v Lend Lease Retail Pty Limited (1993) Aust Torts Rep 81-216
Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448
Jones v Dunkel (1958-59) 101 CLR 28
Capral Aluminium Ltd v Komljenovic [2001] NSWCA 173PARTIES: Nathan Brannigan (Plaintiff)
Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Nicholas Maropoulos T/as Zisti Poultry Market (Second Defendant)
Greenflower Pty Ltd formerly P & H Property Services Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)FILE NUMBER(S): 4452 of 2004 COUNSEL: J. Trainor (Plaintiff)
M.S. White (First & Third Defendants)
B. Hull (Second Defendant)SOLICITORS: Maurice Blackburn Cashman (Plaintiff)
McCabe Terrill Lawyers Pty Ltd (First & Third Defendants)
Home Wilkinson Lawyers (Second Defendant)
JUDGMENT
1 Nathan Roy Brannigan claims damages as compensation for injuries that he says result from an incident on or about 24 October 2001 at about 9.30 am. His Statement of Claim says 25 October, but I find that the incident occurred on 24 October.
The incident
2 At the time Mr Brannigan worked as a butcher for Joe's Meats, at their shop in Westfield Liverpool. This shop is in the fresh food court of a large shopping centre.
3 He started work, as usual, at about 7 a.m. He cut up meat and prepared the displays of meat for the shop, before having a cooked breakfast with his workmates. Before he resumed work, he left the shop through the back door to have a cigarette and make a phone call on his mobile phone. As he turned the corner to enter the part of the corridor leading to the loading dock area, he put his left foot on a flattened cardboard carton, which was on the ground. The cardboard carton slid forward, throwing him off balance. He attempted to stop himself falling by putting his right foot down firmly. He says that the cardboard carton under his left foot had moved, and that his right foot was on the concrete surface. However, the concrete was covered with oil or grease and his right foot also slid so that, in effect, he did the "splits" and landed on the ground. He says he immediately felt a twisting or bending movement in his back and acute pain. He returned to the butcher's shop and reported the incident to the manager, Mr Craig Solomons. Mr Solomons gave evidence…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Brannigan v Westfield 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
- [2007] NSWDC 99
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendants, as occupiers of the shopping centre, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether this duty was breached, resulting in the plaintiff's injuries. The court also needed to consider whether the injuries were caused by the defendants' negligence and if the plaintiff's own contributory negligence should be taken into account.
The court held that the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as an invitee on their premises. It was determined that this duty was breached when the defendants failed to maintain the shopping centre in a reasonably safe condition, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. The court found that the injury was a direct result of the defendants' negligence and that the plaintiff's contributory negligence did not absolve the defendants of liability.
The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $588,125 against the first and third defendants, dismissing the cross-claim. The defendants were held liable for the plaintiff's injuries, and the court determined that the plaintiff's contributory negligence did not bar her recovery of damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
Verdict for the plaintiff against the first and third defendants in the sum of $588,125. Dismiss cross-claim.
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.