Bruce v Apex Software Pty Ltd

Case [2018] NSWCA 330


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bruce v Apex Software Pty Limited t/as Lark Ellen Aged Care [2018] NSWCA 330
Hearing dates: 27 April 2018
Date of orders: 18 December 2018
Decision date: 18 December 2018
Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [33];
White JA at [34]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: TORT – negligence – breach of duty of care – where appellant tripped outside entrance to aged care facility operated by respondent – where 10-20mm height difference between edge of concrete slab and brick pavers – where height difference likely present since 2000 without incident or complaint prior to appellant’s accident in 2015 – whether primary judge erred in treatment of evidence – whether risk “not insignificant” – whether risk obvious – whether reasonable person in occupier’s position would have taken action to reduce the unevenness in question
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5F
Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479; [1987] HCA 7
Bankstown Foundry Pty Limited v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301; [1986] HCA 20
Bunnings Group Ltd v Giudice [2018] NSWCA 144
Neindorf v Junkovic (2004) 88 SASR 162
Rail Corporation New South Wales v Donald; Staff Innovations Pty Ltd t/as Bamford Family Trust [2018] NSWCA 82
Ratewave Pty Limited v BJ Illingby [2017] NSWCA 103
South Sydney Junior Rugby League Club Ltd v Gazis [2016] NSWCA 8
Thompson v Woolworths (Q’land) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234; [2005] HCA 19
Texts Cited: N/A
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Lorraine Bruce (Appellant)
Apex Software Pty Limited t/as Lark Ellen Aged Care (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:

 

G Hickey (Appellant)
B Hull (Respondent)

 

Solicitors:

  Slater & Gordon (Appellant)
Holman Webb (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/283893
Publication restriction: N/A
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:
[2017] NSWDC 237
Date of Decision:
30 August 2017
Before:
Dicker SC DCJ
File Number(s):
2016/99202

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

In 2015 the appellant, then aged 70, tripped outside the entrance to an aged care facility operated by the respondent. The surface of that area consisted of large, flat concrete slabs bordered by rows of red bricks. There were height differences of 10–20 mm between the edges of the concrete and brick pavers, which had likely been present since 2000 or earlier. Current employees of the respondent (who had commenced work at various times since 1998) gave evidence they had not received any complaints about the surface, or any reports of falls on it prior to the appellant’s accident. An assistant nurse, who undertook twice-yearly inspections to identify safety risks, did not consider there to be a trip hazard, describing the height differentials as “very small” or “minimal”.

Before the primary judge (Dicker SC DCJ), the appellant alleged negligence in the respondent’s failing…

Continue reading Bruce v Apex Software Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bruce v Apex Software Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 330
Case
[2018] NSWCA 330
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bruce, brought proceedings against the respondent, Apex Software Pty Ltd, alleging negligence after tripping and falling outside the entrance to an aged care facility operated by the respondent. The accident occurred due to a height difference of approximately 10-20mm between the edge of a concrete slab and adjacent brick pavers. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether the primary judge had erred in their assessment of the evidence and the application of legal principles.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the risk of injury posed by the unevenness of the entrance was "not insignificant" within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), whether the risk was "obvious," and whether a reasonable person in the position of the occupier would have taken steps to mitigate this unevenness. The court considered whether the primary judge had correctly evaluated the evidence presented regarding the nature of the defect and the history of its existence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's decision, finding that the height difference, while present, did not constitute a risk that was "not insignificant" in the circumstances. The court noted that the unevenness had existed for approximately 15 years prior to the appellant's accident without any prior incidents or complaints, suggesting it was not a substantial hazard. Furthermore, the court determined that the risk was not an "obvious risk" as contemplated by the relevant legislation, and that a reasonable occupier would not have been expected to take action to rectify such a minor and long-standing disparity.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.