Conti v Wollongong City Council

The appeal in *Conti v Wollongong City Council* concerned a claim in negligence brought by a 16-year-old girl against the operator of a leisure centre. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had breached its duty of care by failing to prevent another patron from assaulting her. The primary judge had found in favour of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the defendant, as the owner and operator of the leisure centre, ought to have foreseen that a 16-year-old girl would assault another patron. This required the court to consider the scope of the duty of care owed by a proprietor of a public place to its patrons and the foreseeability of the particular risk of harm.

The Court of Appeal held that the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen the assault. The court reasoned that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant was aware of any prior incidents or any behaviour by the assailant that would have put it on notice of a risk of violence. Consequently, the defendant had not breached its duty of care. The court also addressed the costs order made at trial, finding that the order for solicitor-client costs was vitiated by a fundamental error and substituted it with an order for ordinary costs. The appeal was allowed in part, with the appellant ordered to pay 90 per cent of the costs of the appeal.