Australia: Exercise Of Apportionment Between Tortfeasors And Determination Of Contributory Negligence When There Is A Failure To Slow Down.

Last Updated: 10 July 2009
Article by Ian Jones and Jennifer Casperson

Liverpool City Council v Estephan Estephan (Executor and Administrator of the late Joscelyn Estephan & Ors) [2009] NSWCA 161

Giles JA, McColl JA and Basten JA.

In Brief

  • The Court of Appeal upheld the principle in Tarabay v Leite [2008] NSWCA 259, namely that questions of apportionment give rise to findings which cannot easily be characterized as right or wrong.
  • Where the level of apportionment is challenged and a finding as to fact or law is not, the appellate court will be reluctant to disturb the findings of the court below.
  • The failure of a driver to slow down their vehicle at an intersection is not in itself negligence.
  • The issue is whether there is a reasonable expectation that a collision will occur if the defendant does not slow his or her vehicle.


The NSW Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Liverpool City Council v Estephan Estephan on 3 July 2009.

On 25 May 2001, Mrs. Estephan and her son Steven were killed in a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of King Street and Devonshire Road, Rossmore. Mrs. Estephan was driving a Ford Falcon station wagon which collided with a truck and trailer combination driven by Mr. Finch and owned by Rock Excavations and Plant Hire Pty Ltd. Mrs. Estephan's two daughters who were also in the car survived, however they were critically injured.

The road where the accident occurred was in the local government area of Liverpool City Council, (the "Council").

At the trial, five sets of proceedings were brought against Mr. Finch, Rock Excavations and the Council, by members of the Estephan family alleging nervous shock. Rock Excavations were vicariously liable for any negligence of Mr. Finch.

In each set of proceedings, there were cross claims for contribution between Mr. Finch and the Council. The Council also cross claimed against Mr. Estephan as executor of Mrs. Estephan's estate, in that Mrs. Estephan had been contributorily negligent.

The matter came before the trial judge to be heard on liability only. The trial judge held that Mr. Finch had been negligent in driving the truck and the Council, as the responsible road authority, had been negligent in failing to have appropriate warning signs and markings at the intersection. His Honour apportioned liability 20:80 against Mr. Finch and the Council. Mrs. Estephan was found not to be negligent.

In relation to costs, the trial judge ordered that the Council pay Mr. Finch and the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis and Mr. Finch to pay the plaintiff's costs on an ordinary basis.

The Council appealed the following decisions of the trial judge;

  1. That the trial judge's finding that Mrs. Estephan was not guilty of contributory negligence was erroneous;
  2. In the event that Mrs. Estephan was negligent, the trial judge's apportionment of negligence between the Council and Mr. Finch was erroneous; and

Court of Appeal

Mrs. Estephan's negligence. In relation to the Council's first challenge to the trial judge's findings, the Court of Appeal held that Mrs. Estephan was not negligent.

The Council's only submission to the Court of Appeal regarding Mrs. Estephan's negligence was that she failed to slow down at the intersection. In assessing the question of reasonableness, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision in Sibley v Kais (1967) 118 CLR 424, and Giles JA stated at paragraph 37:

"...failing to slow down or stop is [not] negligent if there is a possibility of the other vehicle continuing. If it did, intersections would become static. It must reasonably be expected that continuance will bring collision. Reasonable expectation depends on the facts, and the facts include that drivers will generally obey the road rules."

The Court of Appeal held that the following facts were determinative that Mrs. Estephan's conduct in failing to slow down was not unreasonable;

  • Mrs. Estephan had knowledge of the intersection and she knew that she had the right of way;
  • Irrespective of her personal knowledge of the intersection, Mrs. Estephan also knew that she had the right of way at the intersection based on the road markings;
  • The trial judge was correct in not accepting that Mrs. Estephan shared the knowledge of the "locals" that the intersection was dangerous, as she did not live close by to the intersection and had not previously witnessed or heard accidents;
  • There was no error in the trial judge considering that the right hand blinker of the truck was not activated; and
  • Mrs. Estephan would have been unable to readily judge the speed of the truck which was supported by expert evidence. No evidence on this point was led to the contrary by the Council during the trial.


The majority of the Court of Appeal, held that the trial judge's exercise of apportionment between the Council and Mr. Finch was correct.

Interestingly, during the trial and the Court of Appeal proceedings, the Council did not rely on the Civil Liability Act 2005 (NSW), dealing with the liability of public and other authorities. This was expressly commented on by both Giles and Basten JJA.

During the trial, evidence was led that the Council became aware of the intersection and its dangers as early as 1992, when a motor vehicle accident occurred. Up until the accident involving Mrs. Estephan in 2001, the Council had received letters from residents alerting them to the dangers of the intersection, and over time the Council had imposed various line markings and Give Way signs.

Justice Giles concluded that in weighing up the respective apportionment between Mr. Finch and the Council the competing factors were as follows:

  • Mr. Finch's failure to observe the modified T intersection sign;
  • Mr. Finch steering the truck onto the incorrect side of the roadway; and
  • The Council's poorly designed and ambiguous road signs.

Justice Giles upheld the decision of British Fame (Owners) v Macgregor (Owners) [1943] AC 197 and Tarabay v Leite [2008] NSWCA 259, namely, that a finding of apportionment is not a finding of fact and a balancing act is required, which may result in variation between individuals.

Of particular significance were Giles JA's comments in relation to appealing findings of apportionment. His Honour referred to the principles of restraint as discussed in Tarabay v Leite, namely that on appeal, where findings of fact and law are the same, it is a mistake to for the parties to conclude that the level of apportionment will be also be the same, as the exercise of apportionment is similar to a discretionary power.

The Council argued that its negligence lay in its breach of duty, according to the degree of departure from the standard of what was reasonable. The Council submitted that just because they were aware of the intersection some 9 years prior to Mrs Estephan's motor vehicle accident, it did not make them any more negligent.

Justice Giles concluded that this submission was ill founded. His Honour concluded at paragraph 71:

"Departure [from the standard of reasonable care] is not measured simply by comparing what was done or omitted to be done with what should have been done. The whole conduct of the Council included its knowledge of the risk of accidents at the intersection and the occasions on which it inadequately gave attention to the priority ambiguity of which the experts spoke, and it is of some importance that the Council contributed to the hazard by modifying the traffic priority. The Council had a department which may be taken to have had traffic engineering expertise. Failure over a long period to put in place the signage and line marking required for reasonable care increased the degree of departure from the standard of what was reasonable, and the Council's culpability was thereby greater."


Interestingly, Basten JA disagreed with Giles JA and McColl JA on the issue of apportionment.

Justice Basten held that apportionment should be decided 1/3 against Mr. Finch and 2/3 against the Council.

His Honour found that the trial judge had erred in matters of principle in his approach to the exercise of apportionment, namely:

  • The trial judge erred in treating the relevant negligence of the Council as extending over a period of 9 years;
  • The trial judge erred in his conclusions as to the mechanisms that the Council had in place for regulation of traffic at the intersection; and
  • The trial judge erred in the amount of weight given to the culpability of a driver who did not see a relevant sign and the authority responsible for erecting adequate signage.


The major points of interest in Liverpool City Council v Estephan Estephan are the Court of Appeal's comments on apportionment and contributory negligence.

When insurers are considering a denial of liability or allegation of contributory negligence in circumstances where the failure of one of the vehicles to slow down is material, consideration must be given as to whether or not, based on the facts, it can be reasonably expected that continuance of the vehicle which failed to slow, would have brought about a collision.

A driver is only negligent for failing to slow down at an intersection where continuing on the same line at the same speed may result in a collision. In relation to appealing matters based solely on the issue of apportionment, insurers should exercise caution in doing so in view of the comments of the Court of Appeal, especially when the findings as to fact are not in issue. Based on the well established principles in Tarabay v Leite, referred to by the Court of Appeal, it is accepted by the courts that the exercise of apportionment is a discretionary one which will vary from individual to individual and will not be lightly disturbed by higher courts.

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.