The Court of Appeal held that a council's internal policy for inspection and maintenance of footpaths (including specified response timeframes for identified trip hazards) is aspirational and self-imposed, and does not determine the legal standard of reasonable care; non-compliance with such a policy does not of itself establish breach of duty. Applying Ghantous, the Court held that a 23mm height differential on an unobscured concrete footpath was a minor hazard pedestrians should expect, and the council was not in breach of its duty of care by failing to grind it down despite six years' knowledge of the defect, in the absence of other complaints or incidents. The Court also held that the primary judge erred in conflating the duty of care finding with contributory negligence (by conditioning the existence of the duty on whether the plaintiff was exercising reasonable care), but this error was immaterial given the correct finding of no breach.
The full text is available to signed-in members.