All All Industry Insights Industry News Media Release Member Only Articles NRA Events NRA Legal NRA Partners NRA Projects NRA Training and Development Policy & Advocacy Policy Updates Technology Tenancy & Leasing Testimonials Thought Leaders Weekly CEO Update WHS Update

Woolworths wins appeal over hazardous grape

August 17, 2017

Written by Sid Sidhu, NRA Legal

A Sydney woman, who was awarded $151,000 in compensation after slipping on a grape in her local Woolworths, has lost her case on appeal and been ordered to pay the supermarket’s legal costs.

First Instance

At first instance, Justice Maiden SC of the District Court of NSW, found that the grape’s presence on the floor was more likely the result of activities of staff prior to the store opening. It was held that whilst the system of inspection could not be improved and training of staff was more than adequate, there was no evidence to suggest that the pre-opening inspection had been carried out appropriately.

Furthermore, his Honour found that if someone had been on duty in the produce section, they would have identified the risk, being the grape that constituted a slip hazard and was the cause of the applicant’s fall.


Woolworths brought an appeal on six grounds. In particular, Woolworths argued that his Honour erred in finding that the grape was on the floor before the store opened and that Woolworths failed to take reasonable precautions.

“Woolworths contends that finding that there is a single grape on the floor in the produce section of a supermarket is insufficient to establish want of reasonable care and thus breach of duty,” the appeal judges wrote.

In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal found there was no evidence to suggest that the grape had been dislodged in the half hour preceding the incident. This argument, as put forth by Ms McQuillian, was “really no more than speculation”.

Additionally, a finding of negligence could not stand as there was an established system of cleaning in place and no evidence of departure from that system. Visual inspection could have been impeded by physical objects such as trolleys and crates, and the fact that Woolworths staff did not observe a single grape was not a casual act of negligence. 


This case serves as a strong reminder of the duty of care expected from occupiers and operators. In New South Wales, section 5B(1)(c) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) requires reasonableness as opposed to perfection and employers may satisfy these requirements by establishing an adequate system of cleaning and inspection.

For more information on this case or assistance with understanding your duties, contact NRA today on 1800 RETAIL (1800 738 245).

NRA Media

  • National Retail Association strengthens support for members on leasing and tenancy
    June 01, 2021

    We are pleased to have strengthened our partnership with Lpc Cresa, a leading advisor to retail tenants across Australia and New Zealand, to assist our…

    Read More
    September 03, 2018

    To download the nomination form, click here

    Read More
  • Closing Loopholes Bill No. 2 passes Parliament 
    February 20, 2024

    Earlier this month, it was confirmed that both Houses of Parliament passed the second tranche of amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) under…

    Read More
  • Jump start your business for 2021 and step ahead of the competition
    November 20, 2020

    2020 has undoubtedly been one of the most challenging years for all of us. It has created unprecedented trends in every industry, and shown retailers…

    Read More
  • NRA members winners in new partnership with Aussie Broadband
    November 16, 2020

    You must be logged in to view this content.

    Read More

What our clients say

Want to chat?
Contact our team today!