Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Mansfield v Great Lakes Council [2016] NSWCA 204 Hearing dates: 17 June 2016 Decision date: 11 August 2016 Before: Beazley P at [1];
Basten JA at [2];
Leeming JA at [63]Decision: (1) Dismiss the appeal against the judgment of the District Court given on 6 February 2015.
(2) Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.
(3) Dismiss the cross-appeal.Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – motor vehicle accident – public or other authorities – whether failure to exercise a special statutory power – whether failure to carry out roadwork manifestly unreasonable – whether authority ignorant of risk which materialised – whether ignorance itself manifestly unreasonable – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 43A
TORTS – negligence – roads authorities – non-feasance – whether council immune from liability in failing to carry out roadwork – whether relevant officers had “actual knowledge” of risk which materialised – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 45
TORTS – negligence – causation – absence of road signage – sign indicating narrowness of culvert – sign warning of weight limitations – whether signs would have prevented accidentLegislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 40, 43A, 45
Roads Act 1993 (NSW), s 71
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (NSW), s 50
Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW), Pt 6Cases Cited: Curtis v Harden Shire Council (2014) 88 NSWLR 10
Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 1 WLR 1057
Nightingale v Blacktown City Council [2015] NSWCA 423
North Sydney Council v Roman (2007) 69 NSWLR 240; [2007] NSWCA 27
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330; [1998] HCA 3
Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Douglas Mansfield (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
Great Lakes Council (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr P Beale/Ms E Arulrajah (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
Mr J Turnbull SC/Ms S Warren (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
CMC Lawyers (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
Mills Oakley Lawyers (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
File Number(s): 2015/52030 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- [2015] NSWDC 5
- Date of Decision:
- 6 February 2015
- Before:
- Hatzistergos DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2011/171609
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
On 1 January 2010, the appellant, John Douglas Mansfield, drove his fully laden water truck along the single lane track of Greens Crossing Road, just south of Stroud. On crossing over a culvert, the left hand side of the bank gave way, resulting in his truck rolling over into the water course injuring him. The Great Lakes Council was the roads authority responsible for the care and maintenance of Greens Crossing Road, empowered to carry out road work pursuant to s 71 Roads Act 1993 (NSW).
At trial in the District Court in November 2014, Mr Mansfield claimed that the harm he had suffered was a result of the negligence of the Council as the responsible authority. He claimed that the Council had failed to build a sufficiently…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Mansfield v Great Lakes Council 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] NSWCA 204
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Council had breached its duty of care to Mr. Mansfield. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Council's failure to exercise its statutory power to carry out roadworks was "manifestly unreasonable" under section 43A of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), and whether the Council had "actual knowledge" of the risk that materialised, as required by section 45 of the same Act, to overcome any immunity for non-feasance. The court also had to determine the issue of causation, namely whether the absence of specific signage, such as a warning of the culvert's narrowness or weight limitations, would have prevented the accident.
The Court of Appeal found that the Council was not liable. Applying section 43A, the court determined that the Council's inaction in relation to the road and culvert was not "manifestly unreasonable." Furthermore, the court held that the Council did not have the requisite "actual knowledge" of the specific risk that materialised, which was a prerequisite for establishing liability under section 45. The court also concluded that even if appropriate signage had been present, it would not have prevented the accident, thus failing the causation test.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the District Court's judgment, ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs, and also dismissed the cross-appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Dismiss the appeal against the judgment of the District Court given on 6 February 2015.
(2) Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.
(3) Dismiss the cross-appeal.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.