Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd v Taouk

The appeal concerned a negligence claim brought by Mr Taouk against Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd (JLL) and another party, following Mr Taouk slipping on grease in a car park. The grease had escaped from a grease trap under the control of the building manager. The primary judge had found JLL, the car park operator, to be primarily at fault. JLL sought leave to appeal the primary judge's decision.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding JLL liable in negligence, specifically concerning the duty of care owed by a car park operator to avoid the risk of slipping on its premises. This involved considering whether hourly inspections of the car park surface would have prevented the accident, and whether the faulty grease trap alarm system impacted the content of JLL's duty of care. The court also had to consider whether the primary judge erred in apportioning fault, and in rejecting certain documentary evidence tendered by JLL.

The court found that the primary judge had not erred in their assessment of JLL's duty of care. The judge's reasoning, which considered the known risk of grease escaping from the grease trap and the inadequacy of the alarm system, supported the conclusion that JLL had failed to take reasonable precautions. The court also held that the primary judge had not erred in rejecting the documentary evidence, as JLL had not adequately articulated the basis for its tender before the primary judge. Furthermore, the court found no error in the primary judge's apportionment of fault, accepting that JLL, as the car park operator, was best placed to manage the risks and safety of the car park surface.

The applicant's summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed. The court extended the time for the appellant to file its amended notice of appeal, but ultimately dismissed the amended notice of appeal. The second respondent's notice of appeal was also dismissed. JLL was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the summons seeking leave to appeal and of its appeal, and the second respondent was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of its appeal.