Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Swift v Wearing-Smith [2016] NSWCA 38 Hearing dates: 20 July 2015 Date of orders: 10 March 2016 Decision date: 10 March 2016 Before: Meagher JA at [1]
Hoeben JA at [13]
Simpson JA at [147]Decision: (1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The verdict and judgment in favour of the respondent on 9 October 2014 is set aside.
(3) In lieu thereof, there be verdict and judgment in favour of the appellants.
(4) The order for costs of the trial in favour of the respondent is set aside.
(5) In lieu thereof, the respondent is ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the trial.
(6) The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal.Catchwords: TORT – negligence – guest falling from first floor verandah as a result of balustrade giving way – proceedings brought against owners of premises – content of duty of care – building inspection report obtained before purchase of property – extent to which owners were on notice of defect in balustrade before accident – extent to which owners should have been on notice of defect – whether response by owners reasonable – breach of duty and causation – appeal by owners allowed. Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – s 5B, s 5D(1)(a) Cases Cited: Ahluwalia and Ors v Robinson [2003] NSWCA 175
Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; 162 CLR 1
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2002] HCA 54; 211 CLR 540
Hatziandoniou v Ruddy [2015] NSWCA 234
Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56; 205 CLR 166
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris [1997] HCA 39; 188 CLR 313
Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory [1998] HCA 5; 192 CLR 431
Sakoua v Williams [2005] NSWCA 405; 64 NSWLR 588
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; 223 CLR 422
Wearing-Smith v Swift [2014] NSWDC 159Category: Principal judgment Parties: Anthony John Swift – First Appellant
Kim Louise Swift – Second Appellant
Peter Wearing-Smith - RespondentRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr JM Morris SC/Ms R Bianchi – First and Second Appellants
Mr M Cranitch SC/Mr T Meakes - Respondent
Moray & Agnew – First and Second Appellants
Bryan Gorman & Co - Respondent
File Number(s): 2014/315541 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- Wearing-Smith v Swift [2014] NSWDC 159
- Date of Decision:
- 9 October 2014
- Before:
- Levy SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2013/121518
Judgment
-
MEAGHER JA: I agree with Hoeben JA that this appeal should be allowed. For the following reasons and those given by his Honour, I consider the primary judge erred in his findings as to breach and as to the mechanism of failure of the balustrade. What follows assumes a familiarity with the factual background and evidence at trial as summarised by Hoeben JA.
-
The primary judge held that in the circumstances which followed their receipt of the…
Continue reading Swift v Wearing-Smith
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Swift v Wearing-Smith [2016] NSWCA 38
- Case
- [2016] NSWCA 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the owners of the premises had breached their duty of care to the respondent, and if so, whether that breach had caused the respondent's injuries. Specifically, the court considered the extent to which the owners were, or should have been, aware of the defect in the balustrade prior to the accident, and whether their response to any such knowledge was reasonable. The court also examined the relevance of a building inspection report obtained by the owners before they purchased the property.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the owners had not breached their duty of care. The court reasoned that the owners had taken reasonable steps in response to the information available to them regarding the balustrade. The building inspection report, while noting some general issues, did not specifically identify the defect that led to the accident, nor did it place the owners on sufficient notice of the particular danger. Consequently, the court determined that the owners were not negligent.
The Court of Appeal set aside the verdict and judgment in favour of the respondent, entering judgment for the appellants instead. The order for costs of the trial in favour of the respondent was also set aside, with the respondent ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the trial. The respondent was further ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The verdict and judgment in favour of the respondent on 9 October 2014 is set aside.
(3) In lieu thereof, there be verdict and judgment in favour of the appellants.
(4) The order for costs of the trial in favour of the respondent is set aside.
(5) In lieu thereof, the respondent is ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the trial.
(6) The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs of the 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.