Australia: Section 5B And 45 Of The Civil Liability Act 2002 – Duty Of Care And Non-Feasance Protection

Last Updated: 9 July 2008
Article by Emma Roberts

Case Note

Blacktown City Council v Hocking & Anor. [2008] NSWCA 144

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

In Brief

  • The appeal was heard consecutively with that of Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130 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 North Sydney Council v Roman [2007] NSWCA 27 ("Roman's case").
  • Special leave was granted in Roman's case, 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 ("CLA") – 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 the footpath surrounding the lid of a Telstra pit. _
  • S 45 of the Civil Liability Act provides in part as follows:_

"(1) A roads authority is not liable in proceedings for civil liability to which this Part applies for harm arising from a failure of the authority to carry out road work, or to consider carrying out road work, unless at the time of the alleged failure the authority had actual knowledge of the particular risk the materialisation of which resulted in the harm.

(2) This section does not operate:

(a) to create a duty of care in respect of a risk merely because a roads authority has actual knowledge of the risk, or

(b) to affect any standard of care that would otherwise be applicable in respect of a risk."_ _

  • " This paper deals solely with the Blacktown City Council v Hocking [2008] NSWCA 144 decision.


  • On the 19 January 2002, the Plaintiff, was walking along a footpath on Reston Avenue, within the local government area of Blacktown City Council ("the Council") when she stepped on the lid of a Telstra pit that was set partly within the footpath and the grassy verge, when the lid rotated causing her leg to enter the pit causing her serious injury.
  • The Plaintiff denied she saw anything to alert her to the fact the lid may have been defective.
  • The Plaintiff sued the Council and Telstra for damages in negligence.
  • The Council conceded the pit was installed by Telstra between 1975 and 1980 and subsequently the Council engaged contractors, Nepean Concrete Industries Pty Ltd ("NCI") to construct the footpath within which the pit was located between 1994 and 1995. The Council conceded that presumably after the work was completed by NCI, one or more of the Council's employees inspected the footpath.
  • The principal of NCI, Mr Garofali, gave evidence that it was his company's instructions from the Council when laying footpaths to incorporate existing Telstra pits into the footpath. The lip of the pit, if necessary, was to be raised or recreated up to the point where the lid was supported from underneath and fitted flush with the footpath.
  • Mr Garofali conceded that concrete should have been poured around the side of the pit within the verge in order to create a lip on which the lid could sit, for otherwise the lid would not necessarily have been properly supported. That did not occur in this case.
  • Mr Garofali, upon being shown a number of photographs taken shortly after the accident, said he could see that new or fresher concrete had been laid over the older concrete as evidenced in the photographs by the different colours in the cement. Mr Garofali was adamant the lid could not be supported only on three sides. Notwithstanding this, Mr Garofali was not prepared to concede that whomever performed the work did a "hopeless job".
  • A number of photographs were tendered of the pit.
  • Mr John Shackleton, maintenance inspector for the Council, confirmed in a statement tendered by Telstra into evidence that he was the inspector at the time of the Plaintiff's accident. His duties included the inspection of roads, footpaths, kerbs and gutters for defects which he would then refer "to maintenance". He was unable to state with certainty when he may have walked the length of Reston Avenue when conducting an inspection, however he wrote: "it was [his] usual practice to drive into the street, either part way or whole of the way and get out of the car to inspect the road, footpath and drainage pits."
  • Mr Shackleton further confirmed that if pits or lids of any utility presented as an obvious risk then it was the practice for maintenance inspectors to request a Blacktown City Council barricade to be placed at the site immediately. This process involved the immediate contacting of Telstra or the relevant service provider by phone to advise them of the broken or missing pit lid and request their urgent attention to that repair.
  • The Council declined to call evidence as to how frequently inspections were carried out nor when the last inspection was performed prior to the Plaintiff's accident.

District Court Decision

  • The trial Judge made it clear she proposed to rely purely upon the photographs depicting the condition of the pit at the time of the plaintiff's fall and for the purpose of determining the condition of the pit at the time of construction of the footpath some seven to eight years earlier.
  • The trial Judge found it was impossible to determine whether there had been any attempt to make a lip on the side of the grass verge when the footpath was laid. Furthermore, her Honour found that at the time the footpath was laid in 1995 the lid to the pit was damaged and chipped away at the edges, on the basis there was cement filling at the corners of the lid which she found was more probable than not, added when the footpath was laid. The effect of which was to remove the lip completely at both ends. Her Honour was satisfied that at the time of the Plaintiff's fall the lid was not supported on the side of the pit along the grass verge. Accordingly, her Honour was satisfied that when the footpath was laid it was not done so as to ensure the lid of the Telstra pit was properly supported by a lip on all sides.
  • The trial judge was satisfied the damage to the side of the pit where it abutted the grass verge was likely due to the passage of cars onto the verge, as the presence of a roll kerb invited such vehicles to drive onto the grass verge. Furthermore, her Honour accepted the Council was aware that vehicles could potentially pass onto the footpath in this fashion.
  • Her Honour found the outward appearance of the pit itself should have put the Council on notice that it was defective, acknowledging that:

"Mr Shackleton's inspections were done in the knowledge that the area had roll kerbs, ought to have alerted him to the possibility of damage to the pit within the area where cars could be expected to drive."

  • Referring to the principles enunciated in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, Her Honour found it was entirely foreseeable that if a pit covered by a lid was built into a footpath and the lid was inadequately supported, that pedestrians might be at risk of injury.
  • Her Honour found the Council owed a non-delegable duty of care to the Plaintiff and although NCI had made inadequate provision for the lip on which to sit the lid of the pit when it laid the footpath, it was the Council that bore liability for its negligent construction. Such a finding was based upon the decision in Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery [2005] NSWCA 432, which following her Honour's decision in this matter was reversed by the High Court in Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery [2007] HCA 6.
  • Her Honour found the Plaintiff had failed to make out a case against Telstra for its failure to carry out inspections and maintain the pit and its lid. Her Honour found there was no evidence to permit a finding that some time after the footpath was made and before the Plaintiff's accident a Telstra technician opened the pit and the inadequate support of the lid was revealed. Nor did she accept that despite Telstra having embarked on a maintenance program on the adjacent side of Reston Avenue in November 2001 that this would have alerted Telstra to the defects of the pit and lid. Therefore, Her Honour was unable to find Telstra had knowledge of the damaged and dangerous state of the lid before the Plaintiff's accident.
  • The trial Judge rejected the negligence alleged against Telstra that it failed to install pits that could withstand the weight of vehicles being driven over it, on the basis Telstra was not to have known the pit would have ended up being partly in the footpath and partly on a grass verge or that there would be a roll kerb requiring the pit to be reinforced in order to withstand the weight of a passing vehicle.
  • The trial judge ultimately found negligence on the part of the Council but not Telstra, entering a judgment for the Plaintiff against the Council and judgment for Telstra against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was awarded $685,199 in damages.

The Appeal

  • The Council appealed the trial Judges' decision asserting she erred in finding negligence on the Councils part and/or that it was liable for any negligence on the part of the contractor who constructed the relevant section of the footpath. Additionally, the Council appealed the trial Judges' assessment of damages and the dismissal of its cross-claim against Telstra.
  • The Plaintiff cross-appealed against the dismissal of her claim against Telstra.

Court of Appeal Decision

  • The Council's appeal was allowed with Spigelman CJ, Beazley JA and Campbell JA, largely agreeing with Giles JA. The Plaintiff's cross-appeal was dismissed.
  • Giles JA, who was in the majority, found that it was erroneous to regard the lack of a discrete lip on the photograph exhibits as indicating a deficiency in the support provided to the lid in 1994-1995 or at the time of the Plaintiff's fall, or as going to the Council being put on notice that the pit was defective. To determine the reason why the lid rotated was to speculate on the evidence available.
  • Giles JA did not accept that the evidence available to the trial judge established that an inspection would have alerted the Council that the pit was defective. He concluded:

"The Plaintiff failed to establish negligence on the part of either the Council or Telstra. Issues concerned with of the Council's actual knowledge of the risk do not arise. Nor is it necessary to consider the Council's appeal on damages."

  • Spigelman CJ, Beazley JA and Campbell JA agreed with Giles JA and Tobias JA in relation to the finding that there was no negligence on the part of the Council at the time the footpath was constructed. Any defect could not be found to have existed eight years before the accident on the basis of a visual inspection of photographs, without expert evidence.
  • In relation to the subsequent negligence by Mr Shackleton, Spigelman CJ, Beazley JA and Campbell JA agreed that the absence of support on the grass side of the pit lid could be picked up on inspection by Mr Shackleton. (Giles JA did not agree the evidence was sufficient for such a finding.)
  • Notwithstanding this, the majority applied s45 of the CLA and found that the Council did not have "actual knowledge" for the purpose of s45 of the CLA. Had Mr Shackleton observed the defect he would have arranged a barricade. This did not occur and thus he did not have actual knowledge and nor did the Council. The Council's appeal was upheld and Roman's case applied.
  • Dissenting judge Tobias JA highlighted the dangers of Judges attempting to interpret photographs as it involves speculation. It was Tobias JA view that it was not open to the trial judge to settle on conclusions unless there was some evidentiary basis for such findings.
  • Tobias JA accepted the photographs depicted the condition of the pit at the time they were taken, but whether they indicated a presence of the lip was potentially a matter for common sense and common observation of the photographs. The trial judge however chose to interpret the photographs without the assistance of an expert.
  • Tobias JA upheld Council's submission that there was no basis for a primary finding by the trial judge of inadequate construction and therefore no basis that a proper inspection would have revealed the defective pit at the time the footpath was constructed.
  • Turning to the s45 question, Tobias JA found the trial judge made no findings with respect to whether Mr Shackleton, the Council inspector at the time of the accident had actual knowledge of the defective pit. The trial judge did not determine this issue. Tobias JA found it strange that the trial judge had not in the present case applied s45 in accordance with her approach in Roman's case. Notwithstanding this, Tobias JA, was satisfied that whilst the trial judge had not expressed a finding that Mr Shackleton had actual knowledge of the damaged pit, the findings she did make were tantamount to such a finding. The failure of the Council to call Mr Shackleton enabled His Honour to draw the inference that a regime of regular inspection or a proper inspection would have revealed the damaged pit lid. Consequently he found that the Council had actual knowledge and he applied s45(1) of the CLA and found the Council liable.
  • Tobias JA preferred the reasoning of McColl JA, dissenting, over that of Basten and Bryson JJA in Roman's case. Therefore Tobias JA rejected the majority, but he was the only judge to do so.
  • As to the question of whether the trial judge was correct in finding Telstra was not liable to the Plaintiff, Tobias JA found the trial judges findings were open to be made on the evidence before her and therefore the trial judge was correct in finding that there was no breach of duty on the part of Telstra to the Plaintiff.


  • The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision in Roman's case. A strict interpretation of s45 requires "actual knowledge" in order for a road authority to lose its special nonfeasance protection. Even a negligent inspection which could or should have revealed a defect by the Council inspector was insufficient to find or infer knowledge in the Council.
  • Tobias JA was in the minority in inferring that the Council inspector did have the requisite knowledge, but it may remain open for such an inference to be made in an appropriate case as Leichhardt Council v Serratore [2005] NSWCA 406 was not overruled.

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.