Sydney Trains v Argo Syndicate AMA 1200 [2024] NSWCA 101

  

Summary of Case

The Appellant (Sydney Trains) successfully challenged a District Court of New South Wales decision that found it had broken the chain of causation in a personal injury case. A commuter had slipped on wet tiles on a stairway, and the court initially held that Sydney Trains was liable because it reopened the stairway despite knowing the tiles were slippery.

The Appellant argued that the injury resulted from a breach of an implied contractual term by the contractor, as the tiles were not reasonably fit for purpose. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Appellant, determining that the contractor’s public liability insurance policy covered the commuter’s injury.

Issues Addressed

1. Implied Contractual Term: Whether tiles provided by a contractor must be reasonably fit for purpose.
2. Breach of Implied Term: Whether the contractor breached this term by providing tiles that were moderately slippery when wet.
3. Causation: Whether the slipperiness of the tiles contributed to the commuter’s injury.
4. Chain of Causation: Whether the Appellant broke the chain by reopening the stairway despite knowing about the tile risks.
5. Insurance Response: Whether the public liability insurance policy should respond to the injury.

Background

In 2016, Sydney Trains hired a contractor to install tiles on a stairway at Penshurst Railway Station. A commuter slipped on the wet tiles and was injured. Testing had shown a moderate slip risk when wet. In 2018, Sydney Trains was found liable for the injury.

Sydney Trains then sued the contractor’s insurer, alleging a breach of an implied contractual term and claiming the insurance policy should cover the liability. The trial judge found that the contractor had breached the implied term and that Sydney Trains had broken the chain of causation by reopening the stairway.

Decision on Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld that the contractor breached the implied term that the tiles be fit for purpose, rejecting the argument that it was not proven the tile was wet. The court also found Sydney Trains did not break the chain of causation by reopening the stairway. It ruled that the insurance policy covered the injury liability, and no exclusion clauses applied.

Implications

This case emphasizes that multiple factors can contribute to an injury, and the chain of causation is not automatically broken by immediate causes. The ruling also highlights that courts consider the broader commercial context when interpreting insurance policies.

Note: The article was also published on www.aact.lk