Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 APRIL 2026

A New High Bar Set For Owners Corporations

A New South Wales Court of Appeal decision examines whether an unpainted speed hump in a carpark constitutes an obvious risk when all other tripping hazards were marked with yellow paint. The case explores the duty to warn under section 5H of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and establishes important principles for occupiers regarding consistency in hazard marking.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The recent decision in The Owners – Strata Plan No 31337 v Balacco [2026] NSWCA 50 is a timely reminder to occupiers of consistency in hazard marking matters. In this case, painting every obstacle except the speed hump in a carpark created a trap and the speed hump was not an obvious risk.

Background

Ms Balacco was injured in a trip and fall on one of two unpainted concrete speed humps in the undercover level 2 carpark of a commercial/residential building in Bondi Junction, shortly after 5.15pm as she walked back to her car. The owners corporation controlled the common property, including the carpark. Although Ms Balacco had driven over (and earlier walked across) the hump that day, she was not a frequent user of the carpark and said it was “dark‑ish” and the hump was unmarked. However, other tripping hazards in the carpark were painted yellow, but not the speed hump (which was painted after the incident).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from