Australia: Shopping Centre Cleaning Case – Is My Cleaning System Reasonable?

Curwoods Case Note
Last Updated: 30 August 2010
Article by Heidi Nolan

Shopping Centre Cleaning Case – Is My Cleaning System Reasonable? Judgment date: 23 August 2010

Arabi v Glad Cleaning Service Pty Limited (2010) NSWCA 208

New South Wales Court of Appeal1

In Brief

  • An occupier of commercial premises owes a duty to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to a lawful entrant who is using reasonable care for his or her own safety.
  • The question of whether a proper system of cleaning and inspection is in place must be considered in light of s 5B(1)(c) and s 5B(2) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (the Act) amongst other relevant things. In this regard, the plaintiff carries the burden of proving that a defendant failed to take such precautions against a risk of harm to the plaintiff as in the circumstances a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would have taken.
  • An insight as to the nature of evidence required to determine whether there has been a breach of duty of care in a slipping case is provided by the Court of Appeal.
  • Whilst it was unnecessary to determine the issue in this case, the Court of Appeal reiterated that even if a plaintiff establishes a breach of duty of care he or she must still prove the breach caused his or her injuries by reference to s 5E of the Act.


On 31 May 2006, Mr Arabi (plaintiff) slipped and fell on a pedestrian ramp at the Bankstown Centro Shopping Centre, sustaining injuries to his right knee. The Centre consisted of three levels, the accident occurring on a ramp between the middle and upper levels. It was the plaintiff's evidence that he was walking up the ramp, talking on his mobile phone when he approached the landing and his right leg slipped and he fell forward landing on his knees.

The plaintiff required two right knee arthroscopies as a result of the injury. The plaintiff indicated that he did not see any liquid on the ramp prior to his fall. However, after the accident he noticed a sticky substance of an orange or brown colour about one metre square on the ramp where he slipped. He stated that the spillage had footprints and wheel marks through it. The plaintiff said that if he had looked where he was about to put his feet he would have seen the substance. The plaintiff did not identify the precise time his accident occurred merely stating he went to the Centre at 12 noon and then went to the Commonwealth Bank before proceeding to the ramp. He did not say how long he was at the bank. The plaintiff reported the accident to the Centre the next day and an Incident Report completed by Mr Mourgarbel, security officer, identified the time of accident as 12 noon.

The records of cleaning inspections of the area showed that a loop of this area had been completed at 11.45am, 12.15pm, 12.35pm, 12.55pm, 1.10pm and 1.30pm. Records also showed that the cleaners performed a total of 26 loops of that area throughout the day.

The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales against both the occupier of the shopping centre (CPT) and the company responsible for the cleaning at the Centre, Glad Cleaning Service Pty Limited (Glad), (jointly the defendants). This matter was heard at first instance by the late Goldring DCJ. His Honour considered that the real issue in terms of breach of duty was whether the system of cleaning was reasonable.

Evidence was given by the cleaner on duty at the time that there were no food shops on the upper level other than one coffee shop, and there were only two food outlets on the middle level, being an ice cream parlour and a popcorn shop. Goldring DCJ accepted the cleaner's evidence that in these areas, continuous cleaning with only short intervals between inspections was not as important as in areas with food outlets. His Honour found that the system of cleaning in operation in that area of cleaning approximately every 15 or 20 minutes was reasonable. As such he found that no breach of duty of care had been demonstrated.

Goldring DCJ indicated that had the plaintiff succeeded, he would have been awarded the sum of $74,184, being $60,000 for loss of future earning capacity, out-of-pocket expenses of $4,184 and future out-of-pocket expenses of $10,000, to be reduced by 35% due to contributory negligence. Despite the two operative procedures his Honour did not believe the plaintiff's non-economic loss exceeded the 15% of a most extreme case threshold required for the awarding of damages under this head of damage.

Court of Appeal Decision

The plaintiff appealed this decision, citing a failure on the part of Goldring DCJ to provide sufficient reasons for his finding that the system of cleaning was reasonable and therefore involved no breach of the duty owed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that the evidence given by the cleaner suggesting that the cleaning contract required inspections every 10 to 15 minutes, rather than at 20 minute intervals which seemed to be the norm between 11.45am and 1.30pm, and that this should have been taken into consideration, as well as the plaintiff's evidence that the spillage had footmarks and trolley tracks through it and therefore looked as though it had "been there for sometime".

Sackville AJA delivered the unanimous decision of the Court. His Honour stated that while Goldring DCJ identified that the relevant issue was whether the system of cleaning in place was reasonable, the critical issue was whether the plaintiff had proven that the defendants had failed to take such precautions against a risk of harm to the plaintiff as, in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the position of the defendants would have taken, as required under s 5B(1)(c) of the Act.

Sackville AJA also stated that when considering whether the precautions taken by the defendants were reasonable Goldring DCJ was bound to consider the matters raised in s 5B(2) of the Act, which are as follows:

"(a) the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken,
(b) the likely seriousness of the harm,
(c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm,
(d) the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm."

Sackville AJA considered that Goldring DCJ's reasons for his findings were not clear enough to expose his thought processes. However, he said that in this case, as neither party challenged the findings of primary fact, and as the question of whether the defendants breached their duty of care to the plaintiff turned on these findings and uncontentious evidence, the Court of Appeal was in a position to determine the question of breach of duty of care. The situation would be different if the findings depended on issues of credit.

The plaintiff argued that a system of cleaning and inspection entailing 10 minute rotations should have been in place. Sackville AJA noted however that "no evidence was adduced to establish the steps a reasonable person in the position of the [defendants] – that is, occupiers of a large shopping mall – would have taken to prevent the risk of harm from spillages" in relation to the area the subject of this accident. He indicated that, for example, no evidence of industry standards or practices of other shopping malls was provided, nor evidence that demonstrated a general practice of inspections of at least 10 minutes. Sackville AJA also indicated that there was no expert evidence discussing the nature of the risk present at the Centre, and practices that could have been undertaken to minimise the risk, including costs of any such measures relevant to the criteria in s 5B(2) of the Act.

Specifically, his Honour found that the evidence presented did not establish the precise number and location of food outlets nearby and the risks these presented to the ramp where the plaintiff fell. Sackville AJA noted that evidence such as this is not necessary in all cases, and reaffirmed the decision of Kocis v SE Dickens Pty Limited2, in which it was said that every slipping case must depend on its own circumstances. He also said that lack of evidence as to general practices in shopping centres may not be relevant where an occupier does not have a system of inspection in place or a plaintiff can establish that a system was in place but was not in operation at the time of the accident: Brady v Girvan Bros Pty Ltd3; Rose v Abbey Orchard Property Investments Pty Ltd4.

That was not the case in the matter before the Court however. The defendants in this matter had in place a system that required inspection approximately every 15 to 20 minutes. It was the cleaner's evidence that there could be slight variations to this time period if other maintenance issues or spills arose for example, meaning that the rotation period was slowed down.

Sackville AJA referred to contractual arrangements in place between an occupier and a cleaner, and commented that these arrangements may support an inference that the contractual requirements represent the appropriate precautions that should be taken by a prudent and reasonable occupier to minimise risk of injury to patrons. In saying this, Sackville AJA referred to the decision of Dean v Stockland Property Management Pty Ltd5, in which he said that a cleaning contract was relied on to demonstrate a significant departure from the contractual system warranting a finding of negligence against the occupier or cleaner.

It is noted however, that in the case of Dean v Stockland Property Management Pty Ltd6, the Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the District Court for retrial and that while the plaintiff certainly argued that the contract should have been read in this way at first instance, no finding was made on this point.

In the present case, the cleaning contract was not tendered, and the evidence of the cleaner concerning rotation periods was used as evidence as to times in which these rotations were carried out. While there was some inconsistency between whether the requirement was between 10 and 15 minutes or 15 and 20 minutes, Sackville AJA stated of the differences that:

"...any variations were relatively minor and certainly did not involve a termination of, or substantial interruption to, the system of inspection. In the absence of evidence that the variations reflected a departure from the standards to be expected of a reasonable person in the position of the respondents, this court cannot infer that an interval of 25 minutes or even 30 minutes involved a breach of duty to the appellant."

His Honour ultimately found that the plaintiff had not satisfied the burden of proving that the defendants had breached the duty of care they owed to the plaintiff as a customer of the shopping centre.

Sackville AJA chose not to determine whether the plaintiff would have proved on the balance of probabilities that the injury was causally linked to a breach of duty. He did however, state that in determining causation a court must have regard to s 5E of the Act. He also stated that in most slipping cases this is done by showing how long the spillage had been on the ground. After making reference to earlier decisions his Honour found that it was possible to draw inferences on causation when there was no system or the system was not in place on the day.

However, he stated this may be harder to do in cases such as this where there was a system of regular inspection. Without deciding the issue, he commented that he thought it was doubtful whether the plaintiff would have discharged the burden in this matter on this issue.

In regards to quantum, the Court of Appeal stated that had the appeal on liability been successful the matter would have been remitted to the District Court for re-assessment on the basis the trial judge's reasons for quantum were insufficient.


The case reaffirms that when determining questions of breach the court must have reference to s 5B of the Act and that the plaintiff carries the onus.

In a spillage case once breach of duty has been established it is necessary for a plaintiff to prove that the breach caused his or her injuries. This involves proving that a proper system of cleaning would have avoided his or her injuries.

While not referring to the decision in Mercouris v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co Pty Ltd7 (where 10 to 15 minutes inspections in a low risk area was found to be adequate) it is apparent from that case and other appellate authorities in respect of spillage cases that the system of inspection in low risk areas of shopping centres away from food courts is less stringent than in high risk areas. However, it is a question for the court to decide, dependent on the facts in each case, whether the system of cleaning inspections is reasonable in all the circumstances.

The contractual arrangements between an occupier and cleaner, depending on the circumstances, may support an inference that a departure from the contractual system constitutes a breach of duty, subject to the question of causation being satisfied, to warrant a finding of negligence against the occupier or cleaner.

We expect that as a result of this decision, plaintiff lawyers will revise their evidence in preparation of cases. We would also expect to see an increase in risk assessment expert reports served on behalf of plaintiffs in an attempt to demonstrate that high standards of cleaning should be required in shopping centres.

1 Hodgson JA, Sackville AJA and Harrison J
2 [1998] 3VR 408
3 (1986) 7 NSWLR 241
4 [1987] Aust Torts Rep 80-121
5 [2010] NSWCA 66
6 [2010] NSWCA 66
7 (2000) NSWCA 79

Ranked No 1 - Australia's fastest growing law firm' (Legal Partnership Survey, The Australian July 2010)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions