Matteo v Adelaide City Council

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil)

MATTEO & ANOR v ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL & ORS

[2020] SADC 96

Reasons of His Honour Judge Slattery

24 July 2020

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - PLEADINGS - PARTICULARS - FURTHER AND BETTER

Application by the first respondent, the Adelaide City Council, for the provision of further and better answers to their Notice to Admit Facts and Documents by the first third party, the Adelaide City Women's Football Club Inc.

Held:

1. Application granted and order accordingly;

2. The court will hear the parties as to consequential orders and costs.

Uniform Civil Rules 2020 r 1.4(1)(b), 117.2; District Court Civil Rules 2006 r 156, referred to.
Hydron Pty Ltd v Harous [2005] SASC 74, discussed.
Rak v Coles Myer Limited (1996) 68 SASR 272, considered.

MATTEO & ANOR v ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL & ORS
[2020] SADC 96

1. Interlocutory Application dated 1 June 2020 in which the first respondent seeks orders that the first third party give a further response to the Notice to Admit Facts and Documents served upon it on 15 April 2020.

   The claim

2. This action was commenced in 2015 and involved a claim by the applicants connected with a sporting event occurring at or about 4:30pm on Saturday 19 May 2012. At that time, the first applicant was participating in a soccer match on Park 18 in the Adelaide Parklands situate at the corner of South Terrace and Hutt Street, Adelaide. There were three soccer fields in that area. The relevant match was being played on the middle field of the three. When competing for a ball on the western side of the field and upon reaching the western sideline of that field, the first applicant slipped on a concrete basin and then collided into an accompanying concrete bench placed about 1 m west of the western sideline of that middle field. The first applicant alleges that he sustained injury and loss. He alleges that the injury was caused by the negligence of the respondents, which included the Adelaide City Council (‘The Council’), the owner of the property.

   The claims of the applicant

3. In the Particulars of Negligence, the applicants assert that the respondents failed to take any or adequate precautions for the first applicant’s safety; exposed the first applicant to a foreseeable risk of injury which could have been avoided by reasonable care on its part; erected a concrete bench on a concrete basin in close proximity to the western sideline of the middle field of the playing surface, when it knew or ought to have known that soccer players, wearing studded boots were running on that surface whilst playing competition soccer; and failed to provide adequate free space surrounding the playing field. There are other more general allegations of breach then pleaded including a failure to warn of the danger of slipping, a failure to inspect or adequately inspect the premises, permitting the bench seat to be erected within an unsafe distance…