Willis v Orange City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 59 min read

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Willis v Orange City Council [2025] NSWDC 208
Hearing dates: 19, 20, 21, 24 March 2025
Date of orders: 12 June 2025
Decision date: 12 June 2025
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for $133,751.

(2)   Order the Defendant to pay the costs of the Plaintiff.

Catchwords:

NEGLIGENCE – risk was foreseeable – risk was not insignificant – reasonable person in the position of the council would have taken precautions – significant probability that the harm would occur – serious harm could result – minimal burden to take precautions – social utility – factual causation established – scope of liability extends to the harm so caused

DAMAGES – non-economic loss – past and future out of pocket expenses – future domestic assistance

OTHER – trip in hole in nature strip – council had actual knowledge

Legislation Cited:

Civil Liability Act2002 (NSW), ss 3, 5B, 5D, 16, 42, 43A, 45

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Warren Willis (Plaintiff)
Orange City Council (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
P Macarounas (Plaintiff)
S Glascott (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Rickards Whiteley (Plaintiff)
McCulloch & Buggy (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2023/00213330

JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. On 9 July 2020 the plaintiff Mr Peter Willis was walking in Byng Street in the city of Orange, when he tripped on a hole in the grass verge between the footpath and the kerb. A parking sign had been installed in the grass verge many years before, but it had been removed, leaving the hole. The hole was not apparent, as grass had grown over it. Mr Willis put out his arms to break his fall. He injured his right shoulder. The defendant Orange City Council (the Council) was the local government authority in the city. It had control over and responsibility for the roadway, the footpath, and the grass verge in Byng Street.

  2. By a Statement of Claim filed on 4 July 2023 Mr Willis has sued the Council in negligence seeking damages for his injuries, disabilities, loss and expenses. The Civil Liability Act2002 (NSW) (the CLA) applies to both liability and quantum. Both were in dispute. In addition, the Council raised issues under ss 43A and 45 of the CLA, which apply to public authorities such as the Council. While s 42 of the CLA was pleaded, reliance on this provision was abandoned in final submissions.

Witnesses Called for Mr Willis

Mr Peter Willis

  1. Mr Willis gave evidence that he is a retired plant operator. He was born in 1948 and is presently 76 years of age. He gave the following evidence concerning his past medical history. In 2002 Mr Willis had a melanoma removed from his left arm. He went back to his GP because he could not lift his left shoulder. He was told that he had torn some ligaments in his left shoulder. He was put off work for two weeks and then went back on light duties. After about a…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Willis v Orange City Council 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] NSWDC 208
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Willis v Orange City Council, the plaintiff, Willis, sought damages from the defendant, the Orange City Council, following an injury sustained from a trip in a hole located in the nature strip adjacent to the plaintiff’s property. The matter was heard and determined by the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed that the council had actual knowledge of the defect but failed to take reasonable steps to address it, resulting in serious injury to the plaintiff.

The central legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether the council breached this duty, and whether the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court examined whether the council's failure to take precautions, despite the foreseeable risk of harm, constituted negligence. The court had to determine the scope of the council's liability and the extent of the damages that the plaintiff could recover.

The court found that the council did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. It was established that the risk of harm was both foreseeable and not insignificant, given the nature of the defect and the potential for serious injury. The court reasoned that a reasonable person in the position of the council would have taken precautions to address the hole in the nature strip, as the burden of doing so was minimal compared to the significant probability of harm. The court also determined that the factual causation was established, and the scope of liability extended to the harm caused by the council's negligence. In assessing damages, the court awarded the plaintiff for non-economic loss, past and future out of pocket expenses, and future domestic assistance.

The court ordered judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $133,751 and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for $133,751.

(2) Order the Defendant to pay the costs of the Plaintiff.

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.