Woolworths Ltd v Ryder

Case [2014] NSWCA 223

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Woolworths Ltd v Ryder [2014] NSWCA 223
Hearing dates:30 May 2014
Decision date: 16 July 2014
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Ward JA at [13];
Sackville AJA at [14]
Decision:

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside Orders 1 and 2 made by the primary Judge on 25 July 2013.

3. In lieu of Orders 1 and 2 made by the primary Judge, make the following Orders:

(1) Judgment for the defendant (Woolworths).

(2) The plaintiff pay Woolworths' costs.

4. The respondent pay Woolworths' costs of the appeal.

5. Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW).

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - duty of care - whether an operator of a supermarket in a shopping centre owes a duty of care to users of a common area near the entrance of its premises in circumstances where a hazard is created by use of a product purchased from the vendor - whether the primary judge's finding that an admission was made by an employee of the occupier was supported by evidence - whether, assuming a duty of care to exist, the supermarket operator breached its duty
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B
Cases Cited: Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258; 75 NSWLR 649
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission [1993] HCA 78; 177 CLR 472
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; 243 CLR 361
Lesandu Blacktown Pty Ltd v Gonzalez [2013] NSWCA 8
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] HCA 18; 200 CLR 121
Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59; 207 CLR 562
Sydney Water Corporation v Turano [2009] HCA 42; 239 CLR 51
Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; 211 CLR 317
Tracey Leeann Ryder v Woolworths Ltd (District Court (NSW), 25 July 2013, unrep)
Texts Cited: Sappideen and Vines, Fleming's The Law of Torts (10th ed, Lawbook Co, 2011)
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Woolworths Ltd (Appellant)
Tracey Ryder (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J E Sexton SC and J W Catsanos (Appellant)
C T Barry QC and A P Quinlivan (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Meridian Lawyers (Appellant)
CMC Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2013/235193
 Decision under appeal 
Jurisdiction:
9101
Date of Decision:
25 July 2013
Before:
Armitage DCJ
File Number(s):
2011/160295

HEADNOTE

[This…

Continue reading Woolworths Ltd v Ryder

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Woolworths Ltd v Ryder [2014] NSWCA 223
Case
[2014] NSWCA 223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Woolworths Ltd v Ryder*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Woolworths Ltd from a judgment of the primary judge. The dispute concerned a claim for damages for personal injury brought by the respondent, Ms Ryder, who alleged she slipped on a grape outside the entrance to Woolworths' supermarket, which was located within a shopping centre. Ms Ryder contended that Woolworths owed her a duty of care in relation to hazards in the common area adjacent to its premises, particularly those created by products purchased from the supermarket.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Woolworths owed a duty of care to users of the common area near its entrance, specifically in circumstances where a hazard was created by the use of a product purchased from the supermarket. Further, the Court had to consider whether the primary judge's finding that an admission had been made by an employee of Woolworths was supported by sufficient evidence. Finally, assuming a duty of care existed, the Court was to assess whether Woolworths had breached that duty.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's decision was not supported by the evidence. It held that the evidence did not establish that the grape on which Ms Ryder slipped was a product sold by Woolworths, nor did it establish that Woolworths had created or contributed to the hazard. Consequently, the Court concluded that Woolworths did not owe a duty of care to Ms Ryder in relation to the incident. The appeal was allowed, the primary judge's orders were set aside, and judgment was entered for Woolworths. Ms Ryder was ordered to pay Woolworths' costs of both the primary proceedings and the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside Orders 1 and 2 made by the primary Judge on 25 July 2013.

3. In lieu of Orders 1 and 2 made by the primary Judge, make the following Orders:

(1) Judgment for the defendant (Woolworths).

(2) The plaintiff pay Woolworths' costs.

4. The respondent pay Woolworths' costs of the appeal.

5. Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW).

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.