Woolworths Ltd v Arnold

Woolworths Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment awarded to Ms. Arnold, who had suffered injuries after slipping on chicken fluids in a Woolworths supermarket. The primary dispute concerned whether Ms. Arnold was contributorily negligent and whether the damages awarded by the trial judge were excessive, particularly in light of a disputed diagnosis of reflex sympathetic dystrophy as a complication of her ankle injuries sustained in the fall.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two main issues: firstly, whether the trial judge erred in finding that Ms. Arnold was not guilty of contributory negligence, and secondly, whether the quantum of damages awarded was excessive. A subsidiary issue arose from the trial judge's strong criticism of one of the defendant's medical witnesses, which the appellant sought to rely upon in its appeal.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings. The court found no error in the conclusion that Ms. Arnold was not contributorily negligent, accepting that she had not failed to take reasonable care for her own safety. Furthermore, the court found that the damages awarded were not excessive, considering the injuries sustained and the subsequent diagnosis of reflex sympathetic dystrophy. The criticism of the medical witness, while noted, did not lead the appellate court to interfere with the primary judge's assessment of the evidence or the damages awarded.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal. Ms. Arnold was ordered to pay Woolworths Ltd's costs of the appeal, and was given 28 days to file a formal Notice of Appeal.