Australian Capital Territory v Badcock [2000] FCA 142

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Capital Territory v Badcock [2000] FCA 142

NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – appeal from judgment of Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory dismissing an appeal from a Master's finding that the plaintiff had sustained personal injuries due to the negligence of the Territory and had not been guilty of contributory negligence – function of appeal judges conducting a rehearing – in matters of impression weight should be given to the decision of the trial judge unless some error in the judgment has been demonstrated – duty of care to protect the plaintiff from hazards which are obvious and for which the cost of maintenance and repair are not great – whether the existence of a system for the identification and rectification of hazards discharged the duty of care Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 9(3) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 27

Warren v Coombes [1979] 142 CLR 531, applied Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] 146 CLR 40, referred to SW Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems [1985] 159 CLR 466, referred to Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory [1998] 192 CLR 431, distinguished Turbo Tek Enterprises Inc v Sperling Enterprises [1989] 23 FCR 331, referred to Pacific Dunlop v Hogan [1989] 23 FCR 553, referred to Rothwells Ltd v Entity Group Ltd [1990] 101 FLR 460, referred to Webb v South Australia (1982) 43 ALR 465, applied Dawson v Westpac Banking Corporation [1991] 104 ALR 295, applied Commissioner of Taxation v Chubb Australia Ltd [1995] 128 ALR 489, referred to Allsop Inc v Bintang Ltd [1989] 15 IPR 686, referred to Hughes v Hunters Hill Municipal Council [1992] 29 NSWLR 232, referred to Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd v Bozinovska [1998] NSWSC 456, distinguished AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY v JOSETTE JEAN BADCOCK A 22 OF 1999 EINFELD, HILL, DRUMMOND, TAMBERLIN & HELY JJ 18 FEBRUARY 2000 SYDNEY [HEARD IN CANBERRA]