Eddy v Goulburn Mulwaree Council

Link copied
Case Copied 47 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Eddy v Goulburn Mulwaree Council [2022] NSWCA 87
Hearing dates: 26 April 2022
Date of orders: 7 June 2022
Decision date: 07 June 2022
Before: Bell CJ at [1]
Gleeson JA at [2]
Kirk JA at [3]
Decision:

(1) Appeal allowed with costs.

(2) Orders (1) and (2) made by the District Court on 30 April 2021 are set aside.

(3) Matter remitted to the District Court to be determined according to law.

Catchwords:

NEGLIGENCE — Defences — Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 45 — Whether defendant had actual knowledge of the particular risk the materialisation of which resulted in the harm — Extent of specificity required by phrase “particular risk”

Legislation Cited:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5C, 5F, 5G, 5H, 5L, 5M, 45

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 37

Cases Cited:

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48

Botany Bay City Council v Latham (2013) 197 LGERA 211; [2013] NSWCA 363

Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512; [2001] HCA 29

Buckle v Bayswater Road Board (1936) 57 CLR 259; [1936] HCA 65

Collins v Clarence Valley Council (2015) 91 NSWLR 128; [2015] NSWCA 263

Collins v Clarence Valley Council (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1682

Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 248 CLR 619; [2013] HCA 36

Goondiwindi Regional Council v Tai (2020) 92 MVR 218; [2020] QCA 119

Menz v Wagga Wagga Show Society Inc (2020) 103 NSWLR 103; [2020] NSWCA 65

Nightingale v Blacktown City Council (2015) 91 NSWLR 556; [2015] NSWCA 423

North Sydney Council v Roman (2007) 69 NSWLR 240; [2007] NSWCA 27

Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 243 CLR 330; [2007] HCA 42

Sibraa v Brown [2012] NSWCA 328

Tapp v Australian Bushmen's Campdraft & Rodeo Association Limited (2002) 399 ALR 535; [2022] HCA 11

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; [1980] HCA 12

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ricky Eddy (Appellant)
Goulburn Mulwaree Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
JE Sexton SC / DP Kelly (Appellant)
R Sheldon SC / RG Gambi (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Stacks Law Firm (Appellant)
Mills Oakley (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/00152128
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:

[2021] NSWDC 150

Date of Decision:
30 April 2021
Before:
Strathdee DCJ
File Number(s):
2020/95802

HEADNOTE

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

The appellant fell and was injured when the ramp on which he was walking slipped from under him. The ramp had been placed over repaving work outside a shopping centre. In the weeks before the accident the respondent local council had twice been notified about problems with ramps in the work area where the accident took place. The appellant brought proceedings in the District Court against the Council, which accepted it had…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Eddy v Goulburn Mulwaree Council 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWCA 87
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Eddy v Goulburn Mulwaree Council*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an appeal concerning a claim in negligence. The appellant, Eddy, had suffered injury and sought damages from the respondent, Goulburn Mulwaree Council. The central dispute revolved around whether the Council could rely on a defence under section 45 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW).

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the interpretation of section 45 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), specifically the requirement that a defendant must have had "actual knowledge of the particular risk" that materialised and caused the harm. The Court had to determine the extent of specificity required by the phrase "particular risk" in the context of the Council's knowledge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the District Court had erred in its application of section 45. The Judges reasoned that the defence under section 45 requires actual knowledge of the specific risk that eventuated, not merely a general awareness of a potential danger. The Court held that the District Court had not correctly assessed whether the Council possessed the requisite actual knowledge of the particular risk that caused the appellant's injury. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the District Court and remitted the matter for redetermination according to law.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed with costs.

(2) Orders (1) and (2) made by the District Court on 30 April 2021 are set aside.

(3) Matter remitted to the District Court to be determined according to law.

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.