Griffin v Coles Myer Ltd

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application for special leave to appeal by Pamela Jeanette Griffin against Coles Myer Ltd. The core of the dispute revolved around the evidentiary requirements for a plaintiff to succeed in a slip and spillage case, specifically whether it is a legal necessity to establish the duration the offending substance was present on the floor.

The legal issue before the Court was whether there is a requirement for a plaintiff in slip and spillage cases to prove how long an object or substance had been on the floor before they can establish causation and succeed in their claim. The applicant argued that this was a question of law, asserting that courts had adopted a test requiring proof of time, irrespective of other circumstances, which, if not met, led to failure.

The applicant contended that recent decisions, such as *Shoeys* and *Drakos*, indicated a developing tendency in appellate courts to move away from a strict requirement to prove the duration of the spillage. These cases, it was argued, suggested that a plaintiff might be entitled to a presumption even without direct evidence of time, particularly in the context of supermarket or variety store operations. The applicant highlighted that in cases where plaintiffs had failed, there was often evidence of a functioning system of supervision or cleaning, which was absent in the present case. The nature of the premises and the operation, such as a supermarket, were considered relevant to this assessment.