Cleaning contractor cleared in District Court

Kalache v Secureclean Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2019] NSWDC 717 (23 October 2019)

HBA Legal acted for a London insurer of a contract cleaning company, Secureclean Pty Ltd, succeeding in the District Court of NSW before Neilson DCJ.

The plaintiff, Mrs Kalache, slipped and fell at the Stockland Wetherill Park Shopping Mall at about 12:11:24pm on 14 June 2016. The Court’s focus of the case was the reason for the fall, finding that Mrs Kalache did not slip on a hazard. Mrs Kalache could not identify the substance she slipped on and provided no evidence as to what the substance may have been. 

Mrs Kalache’s daughter Georgia gave evidence that while at hospital she noticed the back of her mum’s pants were wet. In cross examination Georgia confirmed her mum saw the doctor at the hospital at around 5.15pm. His Honour commented that he was asked to accept that the wet patch had been there over four hours and not noticed by anybody including the plaintiff, her husband, two security guards, the cleaners, the GP at the shopping centre, the radiologist, the hospital doctor or nurse or orthopaedic registrar. The plaintiff has the onus of proof and his Honour was not persuaded that on the balance of probabilities that there was any liquid substance on the floor of the Stockland Mall at Wetherill Park which led to the plaintiff’s fall. 

As such, the Court found in favour of the cleaning contractor, Secureclean, further noting that both contemporaneous reports and CCTV footage did not identify any hazard. In the contemporaneous report, a security guard noted that he inspected the area immediately after the incident and did not find a hazard present. CCTV footage confirmed the report, showing two security guards and a cleaner inspecting the area after the incident with no reaction to a hazard. 

This case highlights the importance of the plaintiff proving the hazard existed and was the cause of the slip and fall.