NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : (2003) 127 LGERA 237 (2002) Aust Torts Reports 81-679
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Richmond Valley Council v Standing [2002] NSWCA 359 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40999/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 8 August 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 4 November 2002
PARTIES : Richmond Valley Council (Appellant) Ethyl Lynda Standing (Respondent) JUDGMENT OF : Handley JA at 1; Sheller JA at 2; Heydon JA at 3
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 410/00 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Blanch J JUDICIAL OFFICER :
COUNSEL : Mr M J Joseph SC/Mr S P W Glascott (Appellant) Mr S G Campbell (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Phillips Fox (Appellant) Mitchell, Playford and Radburn (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : Tort - negligence - duty of care - existence and scope of duty - whether council owed plaintiff a duty of care to ensure pavement in a safe condition - nonfeasance - Local government - councils - liability in tort - nonfeasance - relevance of budgetary allocation for pavement repairs to assessment of breach of any duty of care - ND Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512 Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council (2001) 206 CLR 512 CASES CITED: Littler v Liverpool Corporation [1968] 2 All ER 343 Lombardi v Holroyd City Council [2002] NSWCA 252 Parramatta City Council v Watkins [2001] NSWCA 364 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 DECISION : See paragraph 62
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40999/01 DC 410/00
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate