On an otherwise unremarkable Tuesday evening, a 23-year-old cricketer jogs back towards the nets and vaults over a fence. His foot unexpectedly clips the top of the rail, and he falls head-first to the ground. He will never walk again. The fence? Perfectly fine. No defects or irregularities. What was missing and what has now led to an astounding $15.2 million award for damages was a conveniently located gate. This simple omission is the centerpiece of the Victorian Supreme Court decision in Woolnough v Whittlesea City Council & Anor,1 a judgment that should put all Councils and local Sporting Clubs on notice that a structurally sound facility is not of itself sufficient, and an occupier must turn their mind to how people will actually use it.
What happened in the Woolnough case?
The plaintiff, Jordan James Woolnough, was injured on 15 February 2022 while attending cricket training at the Laurimar Recreation Reserve in Doreen, Victoria (‘the Reserve’). The 23-year-old self-employed carpenter was in the process of jumping over the boundary fence of the Eastern oval with the intention of returning to the adjacent cricket nets when his foot unexpectedly caught the top of the fence, causing a heavy fall to the ground.2 The injuries that followed were catastrophic, and the young plaintiff is now wheelchair bound.
The plaintiff subsequently issued proceedings against Whittlesea City Council (the owner and occupier of the Reserve who had built the boundary fence and cricket nets) and Laurimar Cricket Club Incorporated (who were using the oval and nets and whose coaches were running sessions at the time of the incident). Both defendants denied liability for the plaintiff’s injuries and contended that in the event they were found negligent, the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of injury or in the alternative, was contributorily negligent by jumping the fence instead of using a gate.3 The parties agreed that the plaintiff’s damages, if successful, were $19 million.4
The infrastructure
To better understand the circumstances of this incident, it is important to note the layout of the Reserve:
- There were two ovals at the Reserve, known as the Eastern and Western ovals, with a pavilion nestled between them. A set of cricket nets were installed in the first half of 2020 at a cost of $200,000. These nets were positioned to the south of the pavilion adjacent to both ovals.5
- The Eastern oval boundary fence was just over one meter high and consisted of tubular metal poles supporting upper and lower horizontal metal bars with wire mesh strung between them. No complaints had been made about the structure or condition of the fence itself.6
- There was a pedestrian gate located south-east of the nets, however reaching that gate would involve walking approximately 95 meters. The most direct path from the nets to the Eastern oval involved crossing the fence at a point approximately 41 meters from the nets. Notably, there was no gate for the shorter route at the time of the incident.7
- Between 75% and 90% of cricketers simply jumped or climbed the fence at the most direct point rather than walking the extra distance. It was only the older or injured players who took the longer route.8
- After the incident, the Council installed a gate at the approximate location of the plaintiff’s fall at a total cost of around $1,500. The Council also added a concrete pathway to that gate.9
Why was the Council found liable?
As occupier of the Reserve, the Council owed persons, including the plaintiff, a duty to take ‘such care as in all the circumstances of the case was reasonable to see that they would not be injured by reason of the state of the premises or of things done or omitted to be done in relation to the state of the premises’.10 This is a statutory duty pursuant to the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) (‘the Wrongs Act’).11
The plaintiff’s case against the Council was straightforward. When it installed the nets adjacent to the Eastern oval, it ought to have installed a pedestrian gate in the boundary fence at a point where people moving between the nets would naturally seek to cross the fence.12
It was held that the Council knew or ought to have known that people moving between the nets and the Eastern oval might jump or climb the fence in the absence of a conveniently located gate.13 It was unreasonable, having regard to the aggregate risk of injury coupled with the low cost of installing a pedestrian gate, for the Council not to have done so.14Ultimately, it was not necessary for the Council to envisage a catastrophic injury like that suffered by the claimant, and the risk of falls causing bruises or sprains was sufficient.15
More importantly, the Court found that the Club had, at some point throughout the 2021/22 season, raised verbally with the Council the need for a gate at the Eastern oval fenceline adjacent to the nets.16 The Court was satisfied that the Club’s request conveyed the fact that people had been climbing or jumping the fence in the absence of a conveniently located gate, and the Council, acting reasonably, ought to have promptly installed a gate before the plaintiff’s injury to address safety concerns.17
The Council submitted that causation was not established because as a matter of ‘commonsense’ the plaintiff’s injury was caused by his own decision to climb or vault over the fence rather than use one of the gates.18 That argument was quickly shut down, with the Court finding that had a gate been installed in the area adjacent to the nets, the plaintiff would have used it, and the incident would have been prevented.19 The Council’s negligent failure to install a gate was therefore deemed to be a cause of the injury and the plaintiff’s claim succeeded.20
How did the Sporting Club escape liability?
The Club, also deemed an occupier, owed an analogous duty pursuant to section 14B of the Wrongs Act. The plaintiff’s claim against the Club was two-fold:
- The plaintiff was a fit and healthy young adult who was voluntarily attending senior cricket training and was not in the employ of the Club.27
- The risk of significant injury on any one occasion of climbing or jumping the fence was small.28
- The Club had no greater ability to identify the risk than the plaintiff or any other adult player.29
- The practice of jumping the fence was one of a common and unremarkable nature that had not resulted in an injury on any previous occasions.30
Voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence
Both defendants raised ‘volenti non fit injuria’ as a complete defence to the claim.32 To succeed in that defence, both defendants needed to prove that the plaintiff, freely and voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk he ran, impliedly agreed to incur it.33
The plaintiff led evidence that he had climbed the fence on several prior occasions without difficulty and ‘didn’t see any problem’.34 His Honour accepted that evidence, however was not satisfied that the plaintiff subjectively appreciated the fact that he was exposing himself to the risk of suffering serious injury, let alone the risk that he would become a quadriplegic, nor did he voluntarily accept that risk.35 The Court considered it was more than likely that the plaintiff, like many other cricketers, simply traversed the fence out of convenience, and without turning his mind to the nature or level of the risk involved.36
The Court additionally considered the provisions of the Wrongs Act dealing with obvious risk. His Honour, while accepting that the risk of suffering some injury while navigating a fence in the manner the plaintiff did was an ‘obvious risk’ within the meaning of the Act, such that the plaintiff was presumed to have been aware of it, was again not satisfied that the risk of suffering severe injury was an obvious risk, and the defence failed.37
Notwithstanding the above, the Court did make a finding of contributory negligence. While it was accepted that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would not have acted unreasonably merely by deciding to vault the fence in circumstances where most other crickets were doing so and had not been injured, the plaintiff’s conduct went one step further.38 Evidence from a witness described the plaintiff running ‘reasonably fast’ before arriving at the fence, placing both hands on it, and then attempting to clear it with both legs simultaneously.39 That account was consistent with the plaintiff’s reporting to an ergonomist, in which he described swinging his leading leg across the fence while lifting himself with both hands.40 The Court found that, whatever the precise mechanics, the plaintiff had run at, and attempted to vault the fence, without appreciably slowing down first.41
The Court held that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have taken care to cross the fence slowly and carefully42 Running and vaulting inherently increased the risk of falling, and that conduct could not be excused as mere inattention or inadvertence.43 Nonetheless, His Honour considered that the Council fell substantially further below the standard of care required of it than the plaintiff fell below the standard of care required of him.44 Taking that into account, a 20% reduction was just and equitable in the circumstances, bringing the plaintiff’s total award to $15.2 million.45
What does this decision mean for Councils and Sporting Clubs?
For Councils
The modest cost of a simple pedestrian gate now sits against an eye-watering judgment of $15.2 million. For Councils, the judgment is a stark reminder that the duty of care is not discharged simply by providing facilities that are structurally sound. It requires deep consideration of how people will use those facilities and whether the infrastructure supports safe use in practice. In circumstances where dozens of people routinely jump a fence solely because no gate exists as a natural crossing point, the Court has deemed that a foreseeable hazard requiring attention.
For Sporting Clubs
For sporting clubs, the judgment offers some reassurance. Acting reasonably in raising concerns will generally be sufficient, and clubs are not expected to rectify the shortcomings of premises they do not own. Of course, the line between adequately raising a concern and inadequately doing so is inherently fact-specific, and clubs would do well to document such communications. Installing a conveniently located gate was undoubtedly the obvious answer in this decision. Unfortunately, it was a decision that came too late.
1 [2026] VSC 190
2 Ibid [1].
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid [4], [5] and [6].
6 Ibid [5].
7 Ibid [12].
8 Ibid [13].
9 Ibid [9].
10 Ibid [15].
11 Section 14B.
12 Ibid [16].
13 Ibid [20].
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid [39].
17 Ibid [46] and [51].
18 Ibid [35].
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid [36].
21 Ibid [53].
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid [57].
24 Ibid [46].
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid [58].
27 Ibid [59].
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid [60].
32 Ibid [63].
33 Ibid [66].
34 Ibid [69].
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid [79] and [80].
39 Ibid [75].
40 Ibid [74].
41 Ibid [80].
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid [81].
45 Ibid.
This article may provide CPD/CLE/CIP points through your relevant industry organisation.
The material contained in this publication is in the nature of general comment only, and neither purports nor is intended to be advice on any particular matter. No reader should act on the basis of any matter contained in this publication without considering, and if necessary, taking appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.
