Legal Research
Cases
Woolworths (WA) Pty Ltd v Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd

Woolworths (WA) Pty Ltd v Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 27 August 2004 35 min read

Contents

On this page

WOOLWORTHS (WA) PTY LTD -v- BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY LTD [2004] WASCA 196

Reported Decision:	(2004) 28 WAR 540
Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 196
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:68/2003	Heard:	16 JUNE 2004
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J JENKINS J	Delivered:	27/08/04
No of pages:	21	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Order that respondent contribute 60 per cent of judgment in favour of plaintiff
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	WOOLWORTHS (WA) PTY LTD BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Negligence Award of damages in favour of plaintiff against employer/occupier of premises by consent Plaintiff slipped on wet floor Contribution proceedings by employer against cleaner of premises Claim unsuccessful Whether cleaner negligent Whether cleaner estopped from asserting that employer was not negligent Relevance in contribution proceedings of alleged contributory negligence of plaintiff
Legislation:	Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors Contribution) Act 1947 (WA), s 7(1)(c), s 7(2) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), s 5(1)(c), s 5(2)
Case References:	Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 Bitumen & Oil Refineries (Australia) v Commissioner for Government Transport (1955) 92 CLR 200. , Brambles Construction Pty Ltd v Helmers (1966) 114 CLR 213 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540 James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd v Seltsam Pty Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 53. , Wallaby Grip Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2001] NSWCA 105 Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 Blondel v Wesfarmers CSBP Ltd [2004] WASCA 117 Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 198 ALR 137 Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672 Miller v BP Fremantle Ltd [2002] WASCA 201 Mitchell Erectors Pty Ltd v Hinnen [2002] WASCA 169 Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALR 529 State of New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511 Union International (WA) Pty Ltd v Mazurak [1999] WASCA 272 Uzabeaga v Town of Cottesloe [2004] WASCA 57 Vosten v Commonwealth of Australia (1984) ATR 80 Western Australia v Dale (1996) 15 WAR 464

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : WOOLWORTHS (WA) PTY LTD -v- BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY LTD [2004] WASCA 196 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

MURRAY J

JENKINS J

HEARD : 16 JUNE 2004 DELIVERED : 27 AUGUST 2004 FILE NO/S : FUL 68 of 2003 BETWEEN : WOOLWORTHS (WA) PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : THE DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : FRENCH DCJ

File Number : CIV 2305 of 2000

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Negligence - Award of damages in favour of plaintiff against employer/occupier of premises by consent - Plaintiff slipped on wet floor - Contribution proceedings by employer against cleaner of premises - Claim unsuccessful - Whether cleaner negligent - Whether cleaner estopped from asserting that employer…

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 (WA) Pty Ltd v Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd 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: [2004] WASCA 196
Decision Date: 27 AUGUST 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Woolworths (WA) Pty Ltd v Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Woolworths, sought damages against the defendant, Berkeley Challenge, after a customer slipped on a wet floor in one of their stores. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the defendant had admitted liability and the issue of damages was the primary focus. Following the trial, the plaintiff was awarded damages, and the defendant, Berkeley Challenge, subsequently initiated contribution proceedings against the cleaning company, Berkeley Challenge, which was responsible for cleaning the premises. The central legal issues were whether the cleaning company was negligent, whether it was estopped from denying the employer's negligence, and the relevance of the plaintiff's alleged contributory negligence in the contribution proceedings.

The court considered the nature of the cleaning company's duties and whether they were breached, which would establish negligence on their part. It was determined that the cleaning company was not negligent as they had taken reasonable care in carrying out their cleaning duties. Additionally, the court found that the cleaning company was not estopped from asserting that the employer was negligent. The court also examined the issue of contributory negligence, holding that it was relevant in the contribution proceedings. The court concluded that since the plaintiff contributed to their own injury by not taking reasonable care, the cleaning company's liability for contribution was reduced accordingly.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the appeal was allowed, and the court ordered that the cleaning company contribute 60 per cent of the judgment in favour of the plaintiff. This decision demonstrates the importance of determining the extent of each party's liability in cases involving multiple defendants, as well as the impact of contributory negligence on contribution proceedings. The final orders reflect the court's assessment of the respective responsibilities of the parties involved in this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Order that respondent contribute 60 per cent of judgment in favour of plaintiff

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.