On 2 September 2015, the New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Sharp v Parramatta City Council  NSWCA 260.
The decision considered the availability of the defences to the existence of a duty of care in in the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) in the context of recreational activities and importantly, the Court held that a simply worded warning satisfies the requirements under s 5M of the CLA, provided that the warning was “reasonably likely to result in people being warned of the risk before the recreational activity”.
Fundamentally, the Court advanced that it becomes a question not of whether the relevant person understood the warning, but rather whether the warning was likely to result in people being warned.
For a link to the judgment, click here.
For a link to our detailed case note, click here.