Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor
Case
•
[2014] NSWCA 394
•18 November 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor [2014] NSWCA 394
[2014] NSWCA 394
18 November 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an appeal by the Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd (the appellant) against a decision of the District Court that had found it liable in negligence for injuries sustained by the respondent. The respondent was injured when she fell while descending stairs in ice skating boots to reach an ice skating rink.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the risk of slipping on the stairs while wearing ice skating boots was an obvious risk, whether a warning of a risk is required to be an instruction to avoid or minimise that risk, and whether a reasonable occupier would have provided a warning of such a risk. The court also had to determine if the activity of descending the stairs constituted part of the "dangerous recreational activity" of ice skating for the purposes of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), and whether a notice sign present at the venue contained a warning of the relevant risk. Finally, the court considered the question of contributory negligence.
The Court of Appeal found that the risk of slipping on the stairs while wearing ice skating boots was an obvious risk, as contemplated by section 5F of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). The court reasoned that the inherent nature of ice skating boots, with their hard blades, made slipping on a surface other than ice a foreseeable and obvious risk. Furthermore, the court held that the notice sign did not adequately warn of the specific risk of slipping on the stairs while wearing ice skating boots. The court concluded that the respondent had not established that the appellant had breached its duty of care.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the District Court, and entered judgment for the appellant. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal, subject to qualification for a Certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) for the appeal costs.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the risk of slipping on the stairs while wearing ice skating boots was an obvious risk, whether a warning of a risk is required to be an instruction to avoid or minimise that risk, and whether a reasonable occupier would have provided a warning of such a risk. The court also had to determine if the activity of descending the stairs constituted part of the "dangerous recreational activity" of ice skating for the purposes of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), and whether a notice sign present at the venue contained a warning of the relevant risk. Finally, the court considered the question of contributory negligence.
The Court of Appeal found that the risk of slipping on the stairs while wearing ice skating boots was an obvious risk, as contemplated by section 5F of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). The court reasoned that the inherent nature of ice skating boots, with their hard blades, made slipping on a surface other than ice a foreseeable and obvious risk. Furthermore, the court held that the notice sign did not adequately warn of the specific risk of slipping on the stairs while wearing ice skating boots. The court concluded that the respondent had not established that the appellant had breached its duty of care.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the District Court, and entered judgment for the appellant. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal, subject to qualification for a Certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) for the appeal costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Nikolich v Webb [2020] WASCA 169
Cases Citing This Decision
11
Singh v Lynch
[2020] NSWCA 152
Council of the City of Sydney v Bishop
[2019] NSWCA 157
Kempsey Shire Council v Five Star Medical Centre Pty Ltd
[2018] NSWCA 308
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
2
Moor v Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd
[2013] NSWDC 93
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer
[2007] HCA 42
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council
[2005] HCA 62