Schneider v AMP Capital Investors Ltd; Schneider v Kent Street Pty Ltd

The proceedings involved an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales by the plaintiff, Ms. Schneider, against decisions of Fagan J in two related matters concerning her injuries sustained while exiting a lift. The defendants were AMP Capital Investors Ltd and Kent Street Pty Ltd, the occupier of the premises. The plaintiff's claim alleged negligence on the part of the defendants, specifically concerning the operation and maintenance of the lift.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the plaintiff's evidence regarding the circumstances of her injury, whether the duty of care owed by the occupier extended to replacing the lift mechanisms, and whether the trial judge failed to consider alternative inferential reasoning in determining causation. The court also considered whether leave to appeal was required under UCPR r 51.22, given the amount in issue.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the trial judge’s findings of fact were open to be made on the evidence presented, and that there was no error in the assessment of the scope of the duty of care. The court found that the plaintiff had not established that the trial judge erred in rejecting her evidence or in failing to consider alternative inferences. Consequently, the court determined that the appeals should be dismissed.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal if required, but ultimately dismissed each appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the respondents.