Brodie v Singleton Sh Cncl- Ghantous v Hawkesbury Cncl

The High Court of Australia considered appeals in two cases, *Brodie v Singleton Shire Council* and *Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council*. Both cases concerned the liability of local councils for injuries sustained by individuals due to the condition of public roads. In *Brodie*, the plaintiff suffered injuries when her vehicle struck a pothole on a road maintained by the Singleton Shire Council. In *Ghantous*, the plaintiff was injured when her vehicle swerved to avoid a pothole on a road maintained by Hawkesbury City Council.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the councils owed a duty of care to road users in relation to the maintenance of the roads, and if so, whether they had breached that duty. Specifically, the Court had to determine the scope of the non-delegable duty of care owed by a highway authority to users of the highway, and whether the councils had taken reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.

The High Court, by majority, held that a highway authority does not owe a non-delegable duty of care to road users in relation to the maintenance of the highway. Instead, the duty owed is a personal duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury. The Court found that the councils had not breached their duty of care, as the evidence did not establish that they had failed to take reasonable steps to maintain the roads in a safe condition, considering the resources available and the nature of the risks involved. The principles of negligence, particularly the assessment of breach of duty under section 4B of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965* (NSW) (which was applied by analogy), were central to the Court's reasoning.

The appeals were dismissed, with the High Court upholding the decisions of the lower courts that the councils were not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs.