Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Sydney Trains v Argo Syndicate AMA 1200 [2024] NSWCA 101 Hearing dates: 19 April 2024 Decision date: 07 May 2024 Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Payne JA at [169];
Griffiths AJA at [170]Decision: 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the judgment of the District Court of 15 September 2023 and order 2 as to costs of the same date.
3. Direct the parties to file and serve within 14 days of today agreed orders, or in lieu of agreement, short minutes of order for which each party contends accompanied by submissions not exceeding three pages, as to the amount of the judgment to be entered in favour of Sydney Trains in lieu of the judgment of the District Court, including as to the time at which such judgment should be entered or taken to have been entered.
4. Argo to pay Sydney Trains’ costs of the proceedings in the District Court and in this Court.
Catchwords: INSURANCE – public liability – Sydney Trains held liable for personal injury sustained by commuter who slipped on tiles installed by insured – insured now deregistered – claim against insurer pursuant to s 601AG of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – claim against insurer confined to claim on implied term of contract – whether implied term to provide tiles of adequate slip resistance – whether term was breached – where expert evidence adduced at negligence trial not tendered in trial against insurer – whether inference that tile was of inadequate slip resistance available – whether breach of duty caused commuter to slip – whether evidence at trial established the tiles were wet – whether subsequent decision to reopen stairway broke chain of causation – whether insurance policy responded to claim – whether “occurrence” for purposes of policy was the installation of the tiles or the commuter’s personal injury – whether liability covered by policy extended to secondary liability for commuter’s personal injury – whether performance warranty exclusion applied
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 3B, 5, 5A, 5B, 5D, 5O, Pts 1A, 4
Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW), s 4
Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 471B, 601AG
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 91
Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 (NSW), ss 3, 4
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), ss 5, 6
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW), ss 8, 9
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 26
Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), s 19
Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW), ss 36, 121
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 51.17, 51.29, 51.40
Cases Cited: Aer Lingus plc v Gildacroft Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 4; [2006] 1 WLR 1173
Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson [No 2] (2014) 48 WAR 1; [2014] WASC 102
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Mercer [2014] TASFC 3; 309 ALR 154
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sydney Trains v Argo Syndicate AMA 1200 and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWCA 101
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether an implied term existed that the tiles would possess adequate slip resistance, whether this term was breached, and if so, whether such a breach caused the commuter's fall. The court also considered whether the evidence established that the tiles were wet, and if a subsequent decision to reopen the stairway broke the chain of causation. Furthermore, the court had to ascertain whether the insurance policy responded to the claim, specifically whether the "occurrence" was the installation of the tiles or the commuter's injury, and if the policy covered secondary liability for the personal injury, including the application of a performance warranty exclusion.
The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had erred in its findings. The court reasoned that the expert evidence presented at the original negligence trial, which was not tendered in the subsequent trial against the insurer, was crucial. Without this evidence, an inference that the tiles were of inadequate slip resistance was not available. The court also determined that the evidence did not establish that the tiles were wet at the time of the incident, nor that the reopening of the stairway broke the chain of causation. Consequently, the court concluded that the insurance policy did not respond to the claim as presented.
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the District Court was set aside. The parties were directed to file agreed orders or submissions regarding the amount of judgment to be entered in favour of Sydney Trains. Argo was ordered to pay Sydney Trains’ costs of the proceedings in both the District Court and the Court of Appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the judgment of the District Court of 15 September 2023 and order 2 as to costs of the same date.
3. Direct the parties to file and serve within 14 days of today agreed orders, or in lieu of agreement, short minutes of order for which each party contends accompanied by submissions not exceeding three pages, as to the amount of the judgment to be entered in favour of Sydney Trains in lieu of the judgment of the District Court, including as to the time at which such judgment should be entered or taken to have been entered.
4. Argo to pay Sydney Trains’ costs of the proceedings in the District Court and in this Court.
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.