Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited - [2023] NSWDC 221

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited [2023] NSWDC 221
Hearing dates: 12-13 April 2023; 18 May 2023
Date of orders: 21 June 2023
Decision date: 21 June 2023
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:
1. The proceedings against the defendant are dismissed.
2. Verdict and judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
4. Leave is granted to either party to apply within 14 days to vary the costs order in (3) above.

Catchwords:
TORTS – negligence – slip and fall – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) claim – alleged breach of duty of care by the defendant relating to the inspection and cleaning of the defendant’s supermarket store – whether breach of duty of care – whether any breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries – current disabilities of the plaintiff - damages

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability (Non-Economic loss) Amendment Order 2022 (NSW)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Alat v Franklins Pty Ltd [2012] NSWDC 104
Argo Managing Agenc y Limited v Al Kammessy [2018] NSWCA 176
Avopiling Pty Ltd v Bosevski [2018] NSWCA 146
Buljat v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2022] ACTCA 71
Chen by her tutor Huang v Kmart Australia Ltd [2023] NSWCA 96
Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162
Kocis v S E Dickens Pty Ltd [1998] 3 VR 408
Lloyd v Thornbury [2019] NSWCA 154
New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133
Patrick Stevedores Operations (No 2) Pty Ltd v Hennessey [2015] NSWCA 253
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5; (2012) 246 CLR 182
Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19; (2013) 250 CLR 375
Woolworths Ltd v McQuillan [2017] NSWCA 202

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Martha Cecil Chacon Gomez (Plaintiff)
Woolworths Group Limited (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Marshall SC and J Tryon (Plaintiff)
B Wilson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Emanuel Refenes Solicitor (Plaintiff)
Meridian Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00077986
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

In these proceedings, the plaintiff, Martha Cecil Chacon Gomez, brings a claim in negligence against the defendant, Woolworths Group Limited, in relation to personal injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff on 31 May 2021 in a slip and fall accident. The proceedings are brought by the plaintiff for modified common law damages under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (“CLA”).
The plaintiff alleges, in general summary, that she descended escalators to the defendant’s supermarket in the MetCentre at 60 Margaret Street in Sydney at approximately 5:11pm on 31 May 2021. Soon after entering the defendant’s store, the plaintiff claims that she lost her footing when her left foot slipped on a piece of fruit, probably a piece of mango, which had been dropped by a customer entering the supermarket at 5:02pm. This slip caused the plaintiff to lose her balance and fall awkwardly on her right knee and then to the ground. The plaintiff…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited 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: [2023] NSWDC 221
Decision Date: 21 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a claim for damages brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Gomez, against Woolworths Group Limited, the defendant, for injuries sustained from a slip and fall at one of their supermarket stores. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to properly inspect and clean the store, leading to his fall and subsequent injuries. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant had indeed breached its duty of care, and if such a breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries, as well as assessing the current disabilities of the plaintiff and the appropriate damages.

The central legal issue before the court was the existence and breach of a duty of care by the defendant, as well as causation and damages. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether Woolworths Group Limited failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the safety of its premises, which led to Mr. Gomez’s injuries. Additionally, the court had to examine if Mr. Gomez’s current disabilities were a direct result of the alleged negligence and determine the appropriate compensation for these injuries.

In examining the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the plaintiff did not successfully establish a breach of duty by the defendant. The court concluded that the fall was caused by an unforeseeable and unpreventable event, which was not within the control of the defendant. Consequently, the court held that Woolworths Group Limited was not liable for the injuries sustained by Mr. Gomez. As a result, the proceedings against the defendant were dismissed, and judgment was entered in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed, with an option for either party to apply within 14 days to vary the costs order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings against the defendant are dismissed.

2. Verdict and judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

4. Leave is granted to either party to apply within 14 days to vary the costs order in (3) above.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Gomez v Woolworths Group Limited [2023] NSWDC 221
Hearing dates:	12-13 April 2023; 18 May 2023
Date of orders:	21 June 2023
Decision date:	21 June 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:	1. The proceedings against the defendant are dismissed. 2. Verdict and judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed. 4. Leave is granted to either party to apply within 14 days to vary the costs order in (3) above.
Catchwords:	TORTS – negligence – slip and fall – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) claim – alleged breach of duty of care by the defendant relating to the inspection and cleaning of the defendant’s supermarket store – whether breach of duty of care – whether any breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries – current disabilities of the plaintiff - damages
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability (Non-Economic loss) Amendment Order 2022 (NSW) Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Alat v Franklins Pty Ltd [2012] NSWDC 104 Argo Managing Agenc y Limited v Al Kammessy [2018] NSWCA 176 Avopiling Pty Ltd v Bosevski [2018] NSWCA 146 Buljat v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2022] ACTCA 71 Chen by her tutor Huang v Kmart Australia Ltd [2023] NSWCA 96 Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162 Kocis v S E Dickens Pty Ltd [1998] 3 VR 408 Lloyd v Thornbury [2019] NSWCA 154 New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133 Patrick Stevedores Operations (No 2) Pty Ltd v Hennessey [2015] NSWCA 253 Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201 Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5; (2012) 246 CLR 182 Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19; (2013) 250 CLR 375 Woolworths Ltd v McQuillan [2017] NSWCA 202
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Martha Cecil Chacon Gomez (Plaintiff) Woolworths Group Limited (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: H Marshall SC and J Tryon (Plaintiff) B Wilson (Defendant) Solicitors: Emanuel Refenes Solicitor (Plaintiff) Meridian Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2022/00077986
Publication restriction:	No