Matters in the Media

When Is Slipping on a Chip Worth $580,000?

Strong v Woolworths — High Court of Australia

An amputee slipped on a hot chip outside Big W, won at trial, lost on appeal, then won again at the High Court. The final decision set a national standard that applies to every slip and fall in a high-traffic public area in Australia.

This case went all the way to the highest court in the country — and what it decided affects every person who slips in a shopping centre, car park, or public space.

Get Free Advice → 📞 0410 901 831

$580,000

Final damages awarded

Courts heard this case before it was resolved

20 mins

National inspection standard set by the High Court

The Case

Strong v Woolworths

The plaintiff was an amputee who used crutches to get around. She was attending a sidewalk sale at Big W when her crutches slipped on a hot chip, causing a fall and serious injury. The accident happened at around 12.30pm.

Three things were not disputed: Woolworths controlled the sale area, they owed the plaintiff a duty of care, and they didn't have an adequate system of inspection and cleaning in place at the time.

What was disputed was whether that failure actually caused her injury — or whether the chip had only been on the ground for a few minutes, meaning no inspection system could have caught it in time.

Read the full judgment on AustLII

Don't feel like reading? Watch our breakdown on TikTok

One chip. Three courts. One national standard.

The District Court found Woolworths negligent and awarded $580,000. The NSW Court of Appeal overturned it, reasoning that chips are typically eaten at lunchtime, and since the accident happened at 12.30pm, the chip had probably only been on the ground since around 12.10pm — too short a window for any inspection system to have caught it.

The High Court disagreed with that reasoning. In the absence of specific evidence about how long the chip had been there, they said you can't just assume the shortest possible time. The realistic window was 8.00am to 12.10pm — the entire morning. That was long enough that a proper inspection system would have caught it.

In restoring the original award, the High Court also set something that didn't exist before: a national standard for what "reasonable" inspection and cleaning looks like in high-traffic public areas. Every slip and fall case in Australia since has been measured against it.

How three courts saw the same chip differently

The facts weren't in dispute. The question that divided three courts was about probability — how long had the chip been there, and what does that mean for causation?

NSW District Court — Trial

No inspection system — Woolworths negligent

The facts were straightforward. Woolworths controlled the area, owed a duty of care, and didn't have an adequate inspection and cleaning system. That failure made them liable. The plaintiff was awarded $580,000.

✓ $580,000 awarded to plaintiff

NSW Court of Appeal

The chip probably wasn't there long enough

Yes, Woolworths lacked a proper system. But the plaintiff hadn't proven causation. Chips are eaten at lunchtime. The accident happened at 12.30pm. So the chip was probably only on the ground from around 12.10pm — about 20 minutes. Even a proper inspection system wouldn't have caught it in time. The damages were overturned.

✕ Decision overturned — plaintiff awarded nothing

High Court of Australia — Final

You can't assume the shortest possible time

In the absence of specific evidence, you have to consider the realistic range of possibilities — not just the most convenient one for the defendant. The chip could have been there since 8.00am. That's a window of over four hours. A reasonable inspection system would have found it. Causation was established. The original award was restored.

✓ $580,000 restored. National standard set.

National Precedent — Applies Everywhere in Australia

Slipping hazards in high-traffic public areas must be inspected and removed at intervals of no greater than 20 minutes.

This is the standard the High Court set. It applies to every shopping centre aisle, car park, footpath, and public space in Australia. If a business operates a high-traffic area and cannot demonstrate it was inspected within the last 20 minutes, that is evidence of a failure to take reasonable care.

The legal principles that decided this case

This case clarified how causation works when there's no direct evidence of how long a hazard was present — which is almost always.

Causation requires more than proving negligence

The negligence of the at-fault party must have been a necessary condition of the harm occurring. Proving Woolworths had no inspection system wasn't enough — the plaintiff also had to show that a proper system would have removed the chip before she slipped.

In the absence of evidence, courts assess probabilities

When there's no specific evidence about how long a hazard was present, courts consider the realistic range of times it could have been there — not just the most favourable assumption for the defendant. The Court of Appeal's "lunchtime chip" reasoning was rejected because it was speculative and one-sided.

The 20-minute rule is now the national standard

High-traffic public areas must be inspected and cleaned at intervals no greater than 20 minutes. Businesses that can't demonstrate compliance with this standard are exposed to liability when someone slips on a hazard they should have found and removed.

High Court decisions bind every court in Australia

Unlike state Supreme Court or Court of Appeal decisions, High Court decisions apply nationally. This isn't a NSW case or a Queensland case — it's the law everywhere. Anyone who has slipped in any public area across Australia can rely on the standard set here.

Alex's Take

The Court of Appeal's reasoning had a significant flaw and the High Court identified it clearly. Saying "chips are eaten at lunchtime therefore this chip had only been there 20 minutes" treats one possible scenario as if it were the only one. The High Court asked the more balanced question: what's the realistic range of possibilities? That's the correct approach when there's no direct evidence either way.

The 20-minute standard is the practical takeaway for anyone who's slipped somewhere. The first thing to find out is whether the business has inspection records. If they can't produce a log showing the area was checked within 20 minutes of your fall, that's significant. It doesn't automatically mean you win, but it's exactly the kind of evidence that shifts the conversation.

This case also matters because it's the High Court — it applies everywhere. Whether you slipped in Cairns, Brisbane, or Sydney, Woolworths set the floor for what "reasonable" looks like.

Alex Bassingthwaighte

Founder & Principal, Claimwise

Ready when you are

Tell us what happened.

One conversation. No pressure. Tell us a bit about your situation and we'll be in touch.