Swift v Wearing-Smith

Case [2016] NSWCA 38


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 159
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony John Swift – First Appellant
Kim Louise Swift – Second Appellant
Peter Wearing-Smith - Respondent
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr JM Morris SC/Ms R Bianchi – First and Second Appellants
Mr M Cranitch SC/Mr T Meakes - Respondent

  Solicitors:
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

  1. 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.

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
Swift v Wearing-Smith [2016] NSWCA 38
Case
[2016] NSWCA 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Swift v Wearing-Smith concerned an appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal from a judgment in favour of the respondent, who had suffered injury after falling from a first-floor verandah when the balustrade gave way. The proceedings were brought against the owners of the premises where the accident occurred.

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.