Hakim v Waterways Authority of New South Wales

Hakim (the plaintiff) brought proceedings against the Waterways Authority of New South Wales (the defendant) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injury sustained when he fell from a jetty. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, as the owner and occupier of the jetty, had breached its duty of care owed to him as an invitee. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that the jetty was in a dangerous condition due to the presence of a slippery substance, and that the defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent injury.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff. This required the court to consider the scope of the duty owed by an occupier to an invitee, the foreseeability of the risk of harm, and the reasonableness of the defendant's actions or omissions in response to that risk. The court also had to determine whether the plaintiff's own conduct contributed to his injuries, and if so, to what extent.

The court found that the defendant had not breached its duty of care. Gleeson CJ and Kirby J held that while the defendant owed a duty of care to invitees, the evidence did not establish that the defendant had failed to take reasonable precautions. The presence of a slippery substance on the jetty, while a potential hazard, was not shown to have been present for a sufficient period or in such a manner that the defendant ought to have known of it and taken steps to remove it or warn users. The court emphasised that an occupier is not an insurer of the safety of invitees and is only required to take reasonable steps to guard against foreseeable risks. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.