© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2000] NSWCA 24
Court of Appeal (NSW)
2000-03-08
Mason P, Meagher JA, Powell JA
Original judgment source is linked above.
the application of stripping fluid to a vinyl surface produces a dangerous situation;
it was the slippery nature of the surface caused by the application of the stripper solution which caused the Appellant's fall;
the Appellant was not aware of the fact that, during the time when she was out of the Geology Lecture Theatre, stripping fluid had been applied to the floor in the aisle to a point adjacent to the central aisle;
the Appellant had failed to direct her mind to the possibility that during her absence the process of stripping might have progressed so far.
29 As these findings make clear, the work of stripping and repolishing a floor such as that in the Geology Lecture Theatre was such as to expose others, be they students or members of the general public or employees of the Respondent, to the risk of potentially serious injury if as the result of a failure to warn students or members of the general public, or of inadvertence on the part of one of its employees, one or other of them might move onto the floor after the stripping solution had been employed. At the time there was readily available to the Respondent a means - the placement of the warning signs to which I have earlier referred - which would have alerted students or members of the general public to the potential danger, or would have prevented its employees from inadvertently moving onto the floor in an area where the stripper had been placed. The placement of such signs at the top of the central aisle and at the top of the aisles on each side of the lecture theatre would have been a simple enough task and would not have interfered unduly with the carrying out by Ms. Palmer and the other members of her cleaning team of the task of stripping and repolishing the vinyl floor. 30 In all the circumstances, therefore, as I have previously indicated, it seems to me that the Respondent did fail in its duty to take reasonable care for the safety of the Appellant and, that being so, I conclude that the appeal should be upheld. 31 I propose the following Orders:
ORDER that the Respondent pay the Appellant's costs of the trial and of the appeal.
ORDER the costs of the hearing as to damages be reserved to the Judge conducting that hearing. *****
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
CITATION : TELFER v. BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY. LIMITED [2000] NSWCA 24 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40100/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 15/02/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 8 March 2000
(1958) 200 CLR 211
(1960) 104 CLR 177
(1984) 155 CLR 306
(1964) 110 CLR 24
(1982) 66 ALJR 872
(1986) 160 CLR 301
(1973) 128 CLR 666
(1956) 96 CLR 18
(1964) 112 CLR 316