Lithgow City Council v Jackson - [2011] HCATrans 115

[2011] HCATrans 115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S66 of 2011

B e t w e e n -
LITHGOW CITY COUNCIL
Appellant
and
CRAIG WILLIAM JACKSON
Respondent

FRENCH CJ
GUMMOW J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 5 MAY 2011, AT 2.17 PM

MR S.R. DONALDSON, SC: If it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR S.E. McCARTHY, for the appellant. (instructed by DLA Piper Australia)

MR A.S. MORRISON, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR D.W. ELLIOTT, for the respondent. (instructed by Gerard Malouf & Partners)

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Donaldson.

MR DONALDSON: Your Honours, this is an appeal pursuant to leave granted on 11 February 2011 from a judgment of the New South Wales Court of Appeal of 11 June 2010, which is at page 672 of the appeal book. That decision was a judgment in a rehearing of an appeal which had been decided on 24 November 2008, and that is at page 591 of the appeal book.

The proceedings involve a claim for personal injuries by the gentleman who was injured in a park in Lithgow at night time and the principal issue on appeal was whether or not the plaintiff had discharged the onus of establishing that he had suffered injuries in the manner in which he contended. The manner in which he contended is most readily identified at page 27 of the appeal books, in the opening of the case for the plaintiff, at about line 30 where Mr Elliott, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that he would ask the trial judge to infer that the plaintiff –

tripped off the brick course wall at the top, projected himself down into the drain falling a height of about 1.8, 1.9 metres, struck his right arm fracturing his right wrist . . . and knocking himself utterly unconscious –

Now, an understanding of what was being referred to there is also facilitated by photos which appear at page 486 of the appeal book. Your Honours will see there at line 20, figure 6 on the left‑hand side is the drain and that was the subject of observations in opening, and the wall that was the subject of the observations in opening is the end or head wall of the drain, not the sloping sides of the drain which can be seen at either end of the wall. There are similarly useful photographs at page 466 of the appeal book which show the end wall and the side walls of the drain, the plaintiff’s case being that tripped over a course of bricks on the head wall and fell into the drain.

It is also, in order to understand the factual background, perhaps helpful to have a look at the map on page 511 of the appeal books which indicates…

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 Lithgow City Council v Jackson 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: [2011] HCATrans 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lithgow City Council v Jackson concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The dispute arose from a claim for damages for personal injury brought by Mr Jackson against Lithgow City Council. Mr Jackson alleged that he had suffered injury as a result of the Council’s negligence in failing to maintain a public road.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Council owed a duty of care to Mr Jackson in relation to the condition of the road, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. A further issue was whether the Council’s alleged breach of duty had caused Mr Jackson’s injuries, and whether any contributory negligence on Mr Jackson’s part should reduce the damages recoverable.

The High Court considered the principles governing the liability of public authorities for negligence. It affirmed that a public authority can owe a duty of care to individuals in the exercise of its statutory functions, but that such a duty does not arise merely from the existence of a statutory power or duty. The court examined the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the Council’s functions, the foreseeability of harm, and the reasonableness of imposing a duty of care. The court also applied the principles of causation and contributory negligence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Council had not breached its duty of care to Mr Jackson. Consequently, the judgment of the New South Wales Court of Appeal was set aside, and judgment was entered for the defendant, Lithgow City Council.

Orders