Australia: Proof Of Negligence Where Plaintiff Allegedly Struck By Barricade - Liability Of Occupier Who Delegates Responsibility To Manager

Last Updated: 4 August 2009
Article by Samantha Hubbard

Court of Appeal finds that a plaintiff must adduce evidence supporting a positive inference implying negligence on the part of the defendant which must rise above the level of conjecture to support a finding of breach of duty of care.

Judgment date: 16 July 20091

Condos v Clycut Pty Limited [2009] NSWCA 200

In Brief

  • A plaintiff must adduce evidence supporting a positive inference implying negligence on the part of a defendant which rises above the level of conjecture. The inference must be considered more probable than other possibilities. It must go beyond speculation in order for a breach of duty of care to be found.
  • The Court of Appeal decided that there was insufficient evidence of the precise mechanism of injury, including the configuration of any barricade which struck the plaintiff, evidence of how the barricade was secured and that it was capable of being moved by high winds, for a court to draw an inference that either the occupier of the premises or the security company had failed to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiff.
  • Further, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that either defendant did, or did not do, something in relation to a barricade on the day in question which would support a finding that they failed to respond to a foreseeable risk. Accordingly, it was determined that, based on the plaintiff's evidence, a court was unable to conclude, as a matter of probability, that either defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff.


On 23 March 2005 at about 9.00 am, the plaintiff alleged that he was walking through the Pacific Square Shopping Centre at Maroubra when a barricade fell over due to high winds and struck him. The owner of the shopping centre, Clycut Pty Limited (Clycut), was the occupier of the premises but delegated the operation and management of the centre to Jones Lang LaSalle. Clycut also engaged the service of a security firm, Reflections Security Pty Limited (Reflections) to ensure the safety of the building and everyone entering it.

The plaintiff was born in Greece and gave evidence in somewhat broken English which was at times difficult to transcribe. The plaintiff alleged he fell outside a shop called Wokmaster in the middle of a passage, on a windy and rainy day. The plaintiff recalled that he had seen some type of barricade outside this shop in the days prior to the incident.

On 23 March 2005, the plaintiff stated that he was suddenly struck down causing injury to his leg. He was taken to a medical centre by a security guard, Mr Hasan. The plaintiff did not know what caused him to fall. Rather, he overhead Mr Hasan saying at the medical centre that he had been hit by a barricade. Mr Hasan was not called to give evidence at trial but an Incident Form which he completed, stating the plaintiff was hit by a barricade which fell over in very wet and windy weather, was adduced.

The substantial issue at the District Court hearing was what caused the plaintiff's fall. The plaintiff relied upon Mr Hasan's statement in the medical centre and the Incident Report to establish that the barricade had struck him. Significantly, the plaintiff was unable to identify the barricade except to say that some were different to the barricades he had seen days before the fall. Contradictory evidence was also presented as to why barricades would have been in position in front of the shop in the first place with the plaintiff saying it was due to tiling, Mr Hasan saying it was due to a broken window, and the owner of Wokmaster, Mr Hee having no recollection of either of those events occurring.

The plaintiff relied upon an ergonomic and safety management consultant expert, Dr Adams, who assumed the plaintiff had been struck by a particular barricade and that this barricade had been dislodged by a gust of wind. However, Dr Adams could not be confident about wind speed or wind direction.

District Court Decision

Goldring DCJ of the District Court delivered an ex tempore judgment on 9 September 2008. He found it significant that the plaintiff did not remember anything about the incident and that there were no eyewitnesses to the fall. He was of the view that the failure of either party to call Mr Hasan could only infer that his evidence would not have assisted the parties.

Whilst Judge Goldring accepted that it was wet with extremely strong southerly winds on the day of the incident, he stated that the plaintiff would still have to show that the existence of the barricade and the fact it fell over was in some way related to the negligence of either Clycut or Reflections. Ultimately, it was decided that the plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence that either Clycut or Reflections did or failed to do anything that was unreasonable in relation to the barricade. Judge Goldring therefore concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff failed to show that either Clycut or Reflections owed a duty of care to it in the circumstances, or that that duty had been breached. A verdict was entered for the defendants.

On Appeal

McColl JA delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal.


On appeal, the plaintiff argued that Judge Goldring had erred in finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove either Clycut or Reflections owed it a duty of care or that a duty of care had been breached. It was also argued that Judge Goldring erroneously ignored evidence of Reflections' knowledge of the barricades and evidence that the barricade was likely to be capable of being moved by the high winds. It was further argued that in the absence of any other explanation, it should have been found that the barricade struck the plaintiff because it was blown onto him.

The plaintiff submitted that Clycut, as the owner and occupier of the premises, had effectively absented itself and not effectively delegated its obligations as occupier to Jones Lang LaSalle. Accordingly, it was argued that Clycut had a residual duty of care to ensure the premises were safe. It was then argued that the presence of the barricade was not safe and that this was sufficient to demonstrate that Clycut had breached its duty of care.

In response, Clycut submitted that there was no evidence it had done, or failed to do, anything in relation to the barricade and that the appointment of Jones Lang LaSalle was evidence of Clycut discharging its duty of care. It contended there was no evidence that Clycut knew, or should have known, anything at all about the presence, existence or stability of any barricade in the area. It was also argued there was no evidence that the danger of the barricade being blown over due to high winds was foreseeable by Clycut.

Reflections argued that the plaintiff had failed to establish that it had caused or contributed to the incident of 23 March 2005. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was within a relevant class of persons to whom Reflections owed a duty of care and had failed to establish there was any breach of such a duty by Reflections. Significantly, Reflections argued that the plaintiff had never established the identity, nature, weight or structural details of any barricade which may have hit him and did not establish where any barricade came from or why it was in the position where the plaintiff may have encountered it. In addition, it was submitted by Reflections that there was no evidence that the wind was sufficient to dislodge any barricade.


In relation to the question of duty of care, the Court of Appeal decided that Clycut owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, as a lawful entrant to the centre, by virtue of its power of control. This was a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injuries, in accordance with the decision found in Wynn Tresidder Management v Barkho2 (Wynn Tresidder).

However, it was noted that an occupier's duty of care could be discharged by the occupier's exercise of reasonable skill and care in engaging someone else to take steps to keep the property safe, in accordance with the decision of Bevillesta v Liberty International Insurance3. The Court found that Clycut had delegated its responsibility to operate and manage the centre to Jones Lang LaSalle and that it had delegated its security obligations to Reflections. Significantly, the plaintiff had accepted the delegation of duty to Jones Lang LaSalle.

With respect to Reflections, it was held that they also owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury by nature of the Security Services Agreement with Clycut.

Despite finding that both Clycut and Reflections owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the Court of Appeal held that Judge Goldring had not erred in concluding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that either had breached any duty of care. The Court referred to the requirement that the plaintiff adduce evidence supporting a positive inference implying negligence by the defendants, which must rise above the level of conjecture and go beyond speculation. The Court mentioned numerous cases in which it was held that a plaintiff must present evidence that the more probable inference is that the injury arose from the defendant's negligence.

Relevantly, it was noted that the plaintiff had never established the nature of the barricade which had struck him, that the barricade was likely to be capable of being moved by high winds, its position prior to allegedly hitting the plaintiff, evidence of how the barricade was secured prior to the fall, and evidence of the likely direction and speed of the wind at the time. It was therefore held that there was no evidence above the level of conjecture regarding the cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The Court was unable to infer that either Clycut or Reflections had failed to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury as the plaintiff had failed to establish that either of the defendants did, or did not, do something in relation to the barricade on the day in question which would support a finding that they failed to respond to a foreseeable risk.

The Court also criticised the failure of the plaintiff to raise the issue of whether or not Jones Lang LaSalle had effectively discharged its duties under its agreement with Clycut. The Court considered this argument was necessary before a conclusion could be drawn that Clycut had some residual obligations to the plaintiff which it had breached, based on the decision in Wynn Tresidder.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that, based on the plaintiff's evidence, the Court was unable to conclude, as a matter of probability, that either Clycut or Reflections breached its duty of care to the plaintiff. As an aside, the Court of Appeal also criticised Judge Goldring's failure to precisely determine damages with respect to non-economic loss, instead of ordering that a range of between 28% to 30% of a most extreme case was appropriate. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed with costs.


This case clearly supports the proposition that an occupier will have an overriding duty of care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to members of the public by virtue of its power of control, but that this duty may be delegated to third parties. It is important in cases involving occupiers that evidence be adduced of the extent of the delegation of duties and whether the third party has effectively discharged those duties.

An important implication arising from this case is that claims against occupiers will not be successful unless a plaintiff can adduce specific evidence as to the exact cause of injury before it is accepted that the injury was foreseeable and that there has been a breach of duty of care. Evidence which is purely conjecture or speculative will not be used by a court to infer negligence. Rather, evidence must demonstrate that it is more probable than not that an injury arose from the defendant's negligence rather than some other non-negligent cause.


1. McColl JA, Campbell JA and Macfarlan JA

2. [2009] NSWCA149

3. [2009]NSWCA16

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.