Reid v Target Australia Pty Ltd

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title:

Reid v Target Australia Pty Ltd

Medium Neutral Citation:

[2014] NSWCA 60

Hearing Date(s):

29 November 2013

Decision Date:

17 March 2014

Before:

Macfarlan JA at [1]
Ward JA at [2]
Emmett JA at [103]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

EVIDENCE - whether primary judge should have drawn Jones v Dunkel inferences - whether other inferences should have been drawn in absence of oral evidence
TORTS - negligence - whether duty of care to monitor area outside leased premises for persons carrying beverages

Cases Cited:

Brady v Girvan bros Ltd t/as Minto Mall (1986) 7 NSWLR 241
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298
Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5: (2012) 246 CLR 182

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Trina Reid (Appellant)
Target Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel:

Counsel:
T Molomby SC with M Daley (Appellant)
M T McCulloch SC with R Gambi (Respondent)

- Solicitors:

Solicitors:
Brydens Law Office (Appellant)
McCabe Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

CA 2012/244650

Decision Under Appeal

- Before:

Neilson DCJ

- Date of Decision: 

13 July 2012

- Court File Number(s):

DC 2010/376891

JUDGMENT

1. MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Ward JA.

2. WARD JA: Mrs Reid, the appellant, was injured on 27 September 2008 when she slipped and fell in front of a store occupied by the respondent, Target Australia Pty Ltd, in the Castle Towers shopping centre at Castle Hill. Mrs Reid brought proceedings in the District Court against both Target and the owner of the shopping centre (QIC Limited) seeking damages for personal injury based on the alleged negligence of the defendants. Before the commencement of the hearing, Mrs Reid settled her claim against QIC but it remained a party to the proceedings as the respondent to a cross claim that had been brought against it by Target.

3. The area where Mrs Reid fell was not leased to Target but it was an area (referred to as the Target Passive Zone) that Target was permitted, under its lease, to use for the purposes of "casual retailing". On the day in question, this was done by placing a portable wire basket, containing goods for sale, outside the store entrance.

4. Mrs Reid contended that Target was liable for the injury suffered by her. In essence, this was put on the basis that Target was or ought to have been aware of the spillage of liquid in the area outside its store where Mrs Reid slipped and fell and ought to have taken reasonable steps to have prevented Mrs Reid's fall (such as…