Australia: Defences - Section 45 Civil Liability Act 2002 - Non-Feasance Protection And Section 5F And 5G

Last Updated: 9 July 2008
Article by Emma Roberts

Case Note

Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130

Spigelman CJ, Beazley JA, Giles JA, Tobias JA, Campbell JA

In Brief

  • The appeal was heard consecutively with that of Blacktown City Council v Hocking & Anor. [2008] NSWCA 144 as in both matters the Defendant Councils raised a defence based upon s45 of the CLA. In doing so, each relied upon the majority judgments of Basten and Bryson JJA in Roman.
  • Special leave was granted in the decision of Roman, however the proceedings settled before the appeal could be heard. Accordingly, the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal directed the appeals in both this matter and that of Hocking be heard together by a bench of five to ensure consistency of decision making.
  • The Court of Appeal considered s45 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 – Special Non- Feasance Protection for Road Authorities and whether the council could defend the claim on the basis that it had no actual knowledge of the risk which in this case was a raised footpath.
  • This paper deals solely with the Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130 decision.


  • On 29 July 2005, at approximately 10:30 am, the Plaintiff, a 65 year old woman, was injured when her left foot caught on the leading edge of a displaced concrete slab section of the footpath, which had became displaced due to tree roots.
  • The Plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell as the footpath was scattered with the shadows of tree branches to the extent that the area in front of her, at the location where she tripped, was quite dark. The Plaintiff gave evidence that she was looking where she was going as it was her practice to scan the area in front of her when she was walking.
  • The Plaintiff was attended by two independent witnesses, Ms Coull and Ms Willmington, immediately after she fell. Both gave evidence at the trial as to the shadows across the relevant section of the footpath and that the height differential in the footpath could not be seen until one was within "a couple of feet" of that location. The Council submitted Ms Coull's evidence was inadmissible as it was based on opinion.
  • The Plaintiff's son attended the incident site approximately one and a half hours after the incident occurred and took photographs of the raised footpath which were tendered into evidence.
  • The Plaintiff and her son visited the Council the day following the accident and had a conversation with Ms Flanagan, who at the relevant time was an assistant insurance officer in the Risk Management Department of the Council.
  • The Plaintiff gave evidence that she informed Ms Flanagan that she had tripped and fallen over a raised lip in the footpath that had trees casting shadows across it at the time. The Plaintiff alleged Ms Flanagan advised her she was aware that someone had been injured at that spot on the footpath and that the area had been earmarked for repairs, but the incident occurred before the repairs were carried out. The Plaintiff alleged Ms Flanagan was unable to explain why a barricade had not been erected at the site if the Council were aware of the problem before the Plaintiff's injury.
  • The Plaintiff's son corroborated the Plaintiff's recollection of the conversation with Ms Flanagan, stating that Ms Flanagan stated "we knew about this" and "you got there before we did to repair it."
  • Ms Flanagan accepted that she had a conversation with the Plaintiff but denied the terms of the conversation as asserted by the Plaintiff. Furthermore, Ms Flanagan stated that it was not her role or that of her Department to monitor or be aware of those assets of the Council which were listed for repair. Her evidence was that if a member of the public complained of being injured due to a poorly maintained Council asset, the complaint would be referred to the Manager of the Risk Assessment Department who would then seek a report from the Council's Engineering Department.
  • The Plaintiff gave evidence that whilst she had not walked upon that area of the pavement before the accident, she was generally aware from her own experience that footpaths were sometimes uneven and had bumps of various types on them. She was also aware shadows were being cast by trees over the footpath upon which she was walking.
  • The Plaintiff alleged the Council was in breach of its duty of care in failing to maintain and/or repair the footpath to ensure that it did not pose a hazard to pedestrians in circumstances where it knew the footpath was defective.
  • The Council filed a defence denying it was in breach of its duty of care and asserted that it was not liable to the Plaintiff by virtue of s45 of the Civil Liability Act, 2002 ("CLA"). The Council also relied upon ss 5F and 5G of the CLA asserting the defect in the footpath was an obvious risk of which the Plaintiff was presumed to have been aware.

District Court Decision

  • Trial Judge, Sorby DCJ, found the obvious risk of harm as judged by a reasonable person in the position of the Plaintiff was the raised lip of concrete pavement, stretching across the footpath to a height of two inches.
  • Sorby DCJ accepted the shade from the trees and the contrasting shadow along the footpath "could obscure the view of the raised concrete lip, creating a hazard that could expose pedestrians such as the [Plaintiff] to the risk of injury by tripping on the raised lip of concrete."
  • Nonetheless, Sorby DCJ relied upon the Plaintiff's evidence that she was aware of the types of risks associated with footpaths, ultimately concluding that where the Plaintiff was aware of the type or kind of risk, that the risk was therefore obvious and one which the Plaintiff was presumed to have been aware of. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim failed.
  • In respect of the Council's defence based on s45 of the CLA, Sorby DCJ could find no reason why the photographs exposed of the footpath taken by the Plaintiff's son could not be allowed into evidence, where there was corroborating evidence of two independent witnesses who assisted the Plaintiff at the time of her fall.
  • Furthermore, Sorby DCJ accepted the Plaintiff's version of the conversation with Ms Flanagan and noted that the Council accepted that once the evidence relating to the Plaintiff's conversation with Ms Flanagan was admitted and accepted, it constituted evidence of the truth of its content notwithstanding the hearsay elements. Accordingly, Sorby DCJ found that Ms Flanagan's knowledge of the defective slab and her assertion that it had been ear marked for repair constituted actual knowledge of the Council for the purpose of s45(1), thus engaging the exception to the Council's statutory nonliability for its failure to repair the defective slab.
  • Judgment was given on 28 November 2006, before the judgement in North Sydney Council v Roman [2007] NSWCA 27 ("Roman") was handed down.

The Appeal

  • In the present matter, the Plaintiff appealed the decision of Sorby DCJ on the issue of liability only. The Council filed a Notice of Contention seeking to support the findings on liability based on ss5F and 5G of the CLA and filed a cross-appeal on three basis. Firstly, the trial judge's finding of actual knowledge for the purposes of s45 of the CLA and secondly, the award for future gratuitous attendant care services and thirdly, the trial judges failure to find contributory negligence.

Court of Appeal Decision

  • Beazley and Tobias JJA wrote the unanimous decision.
  • Beazley and Tobias JJA looked to the decision in Roman in which it was held that for the purposes of s45 of the CLA, actual knowledge must be found in the mind of an officer within the council having delegated (a statutory) authority to carry out the necessary repairs. Basten JA expressed the view in Roman that the Plaintiff bears the onus of proving the facts necessary to engage the exception to the immunity.
  • The Court of Appeal found Sorby DCJ did not make a finding as to whether any officer within the Council, who had delegated authority to carry out or authorise the carrying out of repairs to the subject footpath or to consider carrying out such repairs, had actual knowledge of the defective slab.
  • In applying the majority judgment in Roman, Beazley and Tobias JJA found a relevant officer of the Council had actual knowledge of the particular risk which resulted in the Plaintiff's injury, on the basis that Ms Flanagan had advised the Plaintiff the day following the accident that the location of the footpath where the accident occurred had been ear marked for repair. It therefore followed that the officers of the Council responsible for the carrying out of the relevant work must have had actual knowledge of the particular risk. Accordingly, it was held the exception referred to in s45(1) of the CLA was engaged.
  • In determining whether the risk was "obvious", it was found the oral evidence of Ms Coull was admissible as it related to what she saw at the scene of the accident within moments of the accident occurring.
  • It was found that Sorby DCJ erred in finding the raised lip of the footpath was an obvious risk within the meaning of s5F and that it was the type of risk a person was aware of within the meaning of s5G. Beazley and Tobias JJA wrote at [66]: "It is true that a pedestrian is required to take reasonable care for his or her own safety. But that does not require that a person must walk along a footpath with their eyes continuously glued to the area immediately in front of them. In our view, and as the [Plaintiff] submitted, there was nothing unreasonable in the [Plaintiff's] failing to notice a defect in the footpath of the nature of that in the present case when such a defect only became apparent when the [Plaintiff] was within "a couple of feet" of it."
  • Turning to the decision in Hastings Council v Giese [2003] NSWCA 178, Beazley and Tobias JJA accepted the difference between a defect in a footpath which is obvious and one which is not because it is obscured even to a pedestrian taking reasonable care for his or her own safety.
  • The Court of Appeal held the obviousness of the risk is not irrelevant to an analysis of a breach question, but one of the considerations to be taken into account in determining the reasonable response of a Defendant to a foreseeable risk of harm, as referred to by Mason J in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12.
  • Beazley and Tobias JJA found the shadows cast over the join between the defective slab and its immediate neighbour did obscure the Plaintiff's view of the raised lip until it was too late for it to be avoided. Accordingly, the risk of harm was found to not have been obvious to a reasonable person in the Plaintiff's position, "nor would it have been either apparent to nor recognised by such a person exercising ordinary perception, intelligence and judgment". The Court of Appeal did not accept the Council submission that a Court must find the vision of a Plaintiff must be "totally and absolutely" obscured in order to give rise to a risk.
  • The Council challenged the extent of Sorby DCJ assessment for gratuitous care on the basis of the Plaintiff's pre-existing injuries and submitted His Honour made no finding to support the threshold requirements of s15(3) of the CLA. Sorby DCJ heard oral evidence from the Plaintiff and her son. Furthermore, he had available to him medical reports of Dr Bodel and Dr Conrad. Neither Doctor was called to give oral evidence.
  • The Court of Appeal found Sorby DCJ was in the best position to assess the evidence of the Plaintiff and her son, particularly in light of the "significant attack that was made by council in cross-examination on the [Plaintiff's] claim having regard to her preaccident history and in assessing her response. Whilst this Court can assess that matter by reference to the transcript, full weight should be given to the advantage the primary judge had in hearing the evidence and observing the witnesses." Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found that it was open, on the evidence available, to award 8 hours per week for gratuitous care.
  • On the question of contributory negligence, it was held the Council's contention that due to the shadowing on the footpath the Plaintiff should have exercised extreme care to ensure the shadows did not obstruct her view of any imperfections or bumps in the footpath which she might encounter was not reasonable, was to impose a "counsel of perfection" rather than a reasonable person test. The Council's cross-appeal ground on contributory negligence was therefore rejected.
  • The Plaintiff's appeal was allowed and the Council's cross-appeal was dismissed. The orders of Sorby DCJ were set aside in lieu of a verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $165,178.20.


  • Roman's case was applied and upheld.
  • The decision confirms the onus lies with the Plaintiff to prove the Defendant had actual knowledge of the risk with the knowledge being held by an officer with delegated authority to carry out the necessary repairs. The decision will therefore be of assistance to Councils in defending claims where the Plaintiff will have difficulty proving the Council had actual knowledge of a risk.
  • The facts of this case were somewhat unusual in that an oral admission was made by a Council officer to the effect that the Council had actual knowledge of the defect and the footpath had already been earmarked for repairs. Such admissions are unlikely to occur in the future.
  • The Court of Appeal will not enter into discussions on contributory negligence where a defendant claims a counsel of perfection rather than what a reasonable person in the position of the Plaintiff might do in exercising reasonable care for his or her own safety.

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”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

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.

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 by clicking here .

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.


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.