This case involved whether or not a council was liable for injuries arising from a fall involving an alleged defective footpath.
The defendant was the relevant road authority;
Before the plaintiff fell, the difference in level between the two concrete sections of the footpath had been repaired;
The repair work had been undertaken by the defendant;
The repair work had been done negligently;
The repair was of longstanding and had deteriorated over time; and
The defendant had either not instituted a proper system of inspection of footpaths or had negligently failed to discover the state of the footpath on inspection.
“I decline to infer that the initial repair that had been undertaken by the defendant, that the initial repair work had been done negligently, that, at the time of the plaintiff’s fall, the earlier repair had been effected a considerable time beforehand, or that the defendant had either not instituted a proper system of inspection of footpaths or had negligently failed to discover the state of the footpath on inspection.”
“ I am not satisfied that that case is authority for the proposition that the plaintiff is relieved of the necessity of adducing evidence simply because the material circumstances are within the knowledge of the defendant which does not call evidence. “
“It is no comfort to the plaintiff to show that the defendant did not have a proper system unless she can show that the existence of a proper system would have avoided her injury. That is to say, the critical issue is causation.”
 Mason P: Beasley JA: Campbell AJA