Woolworths (SA) Pty Ltd v Cauchi - [2001] SASC 48

WOOLWORTHS (SA) PTY LTD v CAUCHI
[2001] SASC 48

Magistrates Appeal (Civil)

OLSSON J

Introduction

I have before me an appeal and a cross appeal against the decision of a stipendiary magistrate sitting in the Civil Division of the Magistrates Court. Those appeals raise a variety of issues, to which I shall come in detail in due course.
I will first address the historical facts giving rise to the relevant proceedings. I do so having regard to the express finding of the learned magistrate that the respondent (who was plaintiff at first instance) presented as a reliable witness. The present appeals do not seek to impugn that finding, nor do they challenge the salient findings of fact expressed in reasons published by the learned magistrate. Indeed much of the respondent’s evidence was not in dispute.

The narrative facts

At all material times the appellant was the owner/occupier and operater of a typical “Woolworths” store at the Unley Shopping Centre on Unley Road. This contained within it a section in which fruit and vegetables were displayed for sale.
The respondent is a married woman of Maltese extraction. She was 61 years of age as at 1997. She speaks passable, but not perfect, English.
On a day which the learned magistrate (by inference) found must have been shortly prior to 23 February 1997, the respondent travelled to the store on the Unley Community Bus to do her shopping. She probably arrived there at or soon after 12.30 pm. Her memory was that it is likely that she attended on a Thursday, because it was pension day.
Whilst in the store the respondent walked into the fruit and vegetable section. She was carrying various items which she had already selected for purchase. Having obtained some fruit and vegetables she moved to an area in which loose bunches of grapes were on display. As she moved forward to pick up some bunches of grapes she stepped on a grape or grapes on the floor, slipped, and fell forward on both knees.
It seems clear that a young male employee of the appellant, named Marra, who is no longer on the appellant’s staff, assisted the respondent back onto her feet. Marra was called as a witness on subpoena. He agreed that he had been an assistant in the fruit and vegetable section. He professed to have no present recollection of the incident the subject of these proceedings.
The witness Swanson, also an employee of the appellant at the time of the respondent’s accident, testified that she recognised the respondent as a person who had encountered her in the Unley store on a date and at a time which she does not now recollect. She verified that the respondent told her that she had slipped on something on the floor “at [the] fruit and veg” and fallen. I infer that this conversation occurred on the day of and shortly after the incident.
Mention was made of the respondent’s knee and shoulder. Swanson said that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woolworths (SA) Pty Ltd v Cauchi 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: [2001] SASC 48
Decision Date: 1 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Woolworths (SA) Pty Ltd v Cauchi, the Court was called upon to consider an appeal and cross appeal against a decision of a stipendiary magistrate in the Civil Division of the Magistrates Court. The central issue was whether the appellant, Woolworths (SA) Pty Ltd, was negligent in failing to maintain a safe environment in their store, leading to the respondent, Mrs Cauchi, slipping on a grape and suffering injuries. The Court also had to address issues concerning the Limitation of Actions Act and the validity of an extension of time application under section 48 of the Act.

The Court examined the appellant's contention that the magistrate erred in permitting the respondent's action to proceed without a specific endorsement under section 48(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The Court concluded that the primary purpose of section 48(4) is procedural, aimed at notifying the defendant of a belated claim and allowing them to prepare a suitable response. The Court held that the failure to include the endorsement initially did not invalidate the proceedings, provided the amendment was made in good faith and did not prejudice the appellant.

The Court also reviewed the appellant's argument that the magistrate erred in finding negligence. The Court upheld the magistrate's findings that the appellant had not adequately implemented their housekeeping system, leading to the respondent's fall. The evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant's system was neither adequately supervised nor effectively carried out, resulting in the respondent's injury.

Additionally, the Court considered the respondent's cross appeal, which challenged the magistrate's reduction of the disability assessment and the discount on special damages. The Court found that the magistrate had erred in reducing the disability assessment by attributing a 1% discount to naturally occurring degeneration, as there was no evidence to support such a conclusion. The Court also found that the 10% discount on special damages was illogical and not supported by the evidence.

Finally, the Court addressed the assessment of general damages, concluding that the initial award of $12,000 was manifestly inadequate. The Court awarded $17,000 in total damages, comprising $12,000 for past pain, suffering, and disability, and $5,000 for future damages. The Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross appeal, setting aside the original judgment and entering a new judgment in favor of the respondent for $28,409.95. The Court reserved the question of costs and interest for further hearing.

Orders