Woolworths Ltd v Strong

Woolworths Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which found it liable in negligence to the first respondent, Ms Strong. The dispute concerned whether Woolworths had breached its duty of care to Ms Strong and, if so, whether that breach caused her injuries. The second respondent, the Nominal Defendant, was also involved in the proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in finding that Woolworths had breached its duty of care to Ms Strong and, crucially, whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of causation under sections 5D and 5E of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). Specifically, the court considered whether there was any evidential basis upon which the judge could conclude that the taking of reasonable care by Woolworths would have involved any greater diligence than that which was actually applied.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in her findings. The court reasoned that there was no basis for concluding that any failure by Woolworths to exercise reasonable care had caused Ms Strong's injuries. The court held that the evidence did not establish that a different course of action by Woolworths would have prevented the harm suffered by Ms Strong. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment in favour of Ms Strong was set aside, and the proceedings were dismissed. Woolworths was ordered to pay the costs of Ms Strong and the Nominal Defendant in the court below, while Ms Strong was ordered to pay the costs of the Nominal Defendant in the appeal, with Woolworths bearing the costs of Ms Strong in the appeal, including those she paid to the Nominal Defendant. Ms Strong was also ordered to repay any judgment amount received from Woolworths.