NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Kellys Property Management Services Pty Ltd v Anjoshco Pty Ltd trading as McDonalds BP Chinderah [2016] NSWCA 341 Hearing dates: 18 November 2016 Decision date: 06 December 2016 Before: Meagher JA at [1]; Gleeson JA at [2]; N Adams J at [74] Decision: 1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs. Catchwords: TORTS - negligence – slip and fall – workplace injury – tiled walkway left wet and unguarded following cleaning – respondent employer paid injured employee compensation and successfully claimed indemnity from appellant cleaning company appellant in court below – Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) s 151Z(1)(d) – challenge to factual finding by primary judge – whether employee acting reasonably should have been aware the floor was wet – cleaning machine left floor damp – usual cleaning system involved placing chairs on tables and 'wet floor' signs around perimeter of section being cleaned – expert evidence that wetness of tiles difficult to see – where finding that 'wet floor' signs displayed in adjoining food court and behind rubbish bin not obvious – where finding that sign outside toilets indicated to employees toilets closed for cleaning – where employee slipped and fell when turning right into corridor towards alternative toilet – where perimeter of wet walkway left unsigned Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5B, 5F, 5G, 5H, 5R, 5S Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) s 151Z Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 75A Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 51.18, 51. 36, 42.1 Cases Cited: Bevillesta Pty Ltd v Liberty International Insurance Company [2009] NSWCA 16 Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis (No 2) (2014) NSWLR 393; [2014] NSWCA Fitzsimmons v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 273 Gordon v Truong (2014) 66 MVR 241; [2014] NSWCA 97 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Applicant – Kellys Property Management Services Pty Ltd Respondent – Anjoshco Pty Ltd Representation: Counsel: Applicant – Mr N Polin SC Respondent – Mr R Gambi
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