Woolworths Ltd v McQuillan

Case [2017] NSWCA 202


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Woolworths Ltd v McQuillan [2017] NSWCA 202
Hearing dates:26 July 2017
Date of orders: 14 August 2017
Decision date: 14 August 2017
Before: Basten JA at [1]
Gleeson JA at [2]
Payne JA at [100]
Decision:

(1)   Appeal allowed.

 

(2)   Set aside the orders made by the District Court on 22 September 2016 and in lieu thereof order:

 

(a)   Amended statement of claim dismissed;
(b)   Plaintiff to pay the first defendant’s costs in the District Court.

 (3)   Respondent to pay the appellant’s costs in this Court.
Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – liability – respondent fell on a grape in appellant’s supermarket – whether finding as to length of time grape was on the floor was supported by the evidence – whether appellant required to establish that its staff were present in the produce area after the supermarket opened - whether primary judge entitled to draw Jones v Dunkel inference against appellant – where primary judge found appellant’s system of safety and inspection could not be improved – whether a casual act of negligence – whether appellant’s staff failed to keep a proper lookout for hazards on the floor – where primary judge made no finding consistent with negligence by appellant.
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B(1)(a), (b), (c), 5D
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1
Cases Cited: Australian Safeways Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479; [1987] HCA 7
Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
Kocis v SE Dickens Pty Ltd [1998] 3 VR 408
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services of Australia Ltd & Anor (2011) 243 CLR 361; [2011] HCA 11
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352; [1952] HCA 19
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 121; [2000] HCA 18
Strong v Woolworths (2012) 246 CLR 182; [2012] HCA 5
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Woolworths Ltd (ABN 16 151 003 191) (Appellant)
Colleen Mary McQuillan (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr J.E. Sexton SC/Mr B Wilson (Appellant)
Mr R Sheldon SC/Mr J Malouf (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
HBA Legal (Appellant)
Gerard Malouf & Partners (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/302301
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:
-
Date of Decision:
22 September 2016
Before:
Maiden SC DCJ
File Number(s):
2015/192795

Judgment

  1. BASTEN JA: The appellant obtained a judgment in the District Court with respect to injuries suffered when she slipped on a grape in the Woolworths’ supermarket at Leichhardt. The findings made by the trial judge did not permit a conclusion that the appellant was negligent; indeed they were inconsistent with that conclusion. For the reasons given by Gleeson JA, this appeal must be allowed and the consequential orders made.

  2. GLEESON JA: On 25 November 2012, the respondent, Ms Colleen McQuillan, slipped and fell on a grape in the produce (fruit and vegetable) section of…

Continue reading Woolworths Ltd v McQuillan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Woolworths Ltd v McQuillan [2017] NSWCA 202
Case
[2017] NSWCA 202
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Ltd appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the District Court which found the appellant liable for injuries sustained by the respondent, Mr. McQuillan, who slipped on a grape in a Woolworths supermarket. The dispute concerned whether the appellant had been negligent in allowing the grape to remain on the floor, causing Mr. McQuillan's fall.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge's finding that the grape had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time to establish negligence was supported by the evidence. Further, the court considered whether the appellant was required to prove its staff were present in the produce area after the supermarket opened, and whether the primary judge was entitled to draw an adverse inference against the appellant under the principles of *Jones v Dunkel* given the appellant's failure to call certain evidence. The court also examined whether the primary judge's finding that the appellant's system of safety and inspection could not be improved was consistent with a finding of negligence, and whether the incident constituted a "casual act of negligence" or a failure by staff to keep a proper lookout for floor hazards.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had made no finding that was consistent with negligence on the part of the appellant. The court reasoned that the evidence did not support a conclusion that the grape had been on the floor for a period sufficient to impute negligence to Woolworths. The adverse inference under *Jones v Dunkel* was not applicable in the circumstances, and the appellant's system of inspection, while not perfect, was not found to be inadequate in a way that would establish negligence.

The appeal was allowed. The orders of the District Court were set aside, the amended statement of claim was dismissed, and Mr. McQuillan was ordered to pay Woolworths' costs in the District Court. Mr. McQuillan was also ordered to pay Woolworths' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed.

(2) Set aside the orders made by the District Court on 22 September 2016 and in lieu thereof order:

(a) Amended statement of claim dismissed;

(b) Plaintiff to pay the first defendant’s costs in the District Court.

(3) Respondent to pay the appellant’s costs 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.