Fuchs v Coles Supermarkets: $907,375 Award After a Supermarket Slip and Fall
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has awarded a woman $907,375.50 after she suffered a serious hamstring injury when she slipped on oily liquid inside a Coles supermarket at Bondi Junction.
In Fuchs v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 948, Sirtes J considered the significant impact the accident had on the plaintiff’s health, working capacity and need for domestic assistance.
The decision is particularly important for its consideration of economic loss where an injured person is self-employed or receives income through a family-owned company. It demonstrates that reduced physical capacity does not, by itself, prove an equivalent loss of income. Financial evidence must identify how the injury affected the claimant’s own earning capacity and produced an actual or probable financial loss.
Coles admitted liability shortly before the hearing. The parties also agreed that the plaintiff’s damages would be reduced by 10% for contributory negligence. The hearing therefore proceeded primarily as an assessment of damages.
The Court assessed total damages of $1,008,195. After applying the agreed 10% reduction, judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $907,375.50, with Coles ordered to pay her legal costs.
Fuchs v Coles: case summary
Case detail | Information |
Case | Fuchs v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd |
Citation | [2026] NSWSC 948 |
Court | Supreme Court of New South Wales |
Judge | Sirtes J |
Decision date | 7 August 2026 |
Plaintiff | Suzanne Fuchs |
Defendant | Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd |
Accident location | Coles supermarket at Bondi Junction |
Primary injury | Avulsion tear of the right hamstring tendon |
Liability | Admitted by Coles shortly before the hearing |
Contributory negligence | Agreed 10% reduction |
Damages before reduction | $1,008,195 |
Final judgment | $907,375.50, plus costs |
The Court’s complete reasons are available in the official NSW Supreme Court judgment in Fuchs v Coles.
What happened in Fuchs v Coles?
On the morning of 1 November 2020, Suzanne Fuchs attended the Coles supermarket at Bondi Junction to purchase a cake topper.
At approximately 9.20 to 9.25 am, she entered aisle 6. A pillar stood in the middle of the aisle and a fully stocked roll cage obstructed the right-hand side of the pillar. This required Ms Fuchs to walk around its left side.
After passing the pillar, her right foot suddenly slipped forward. She fell heavily, landing in a position described in the judgment as doing “the splits”, with her right leg extended in front of her.
While on the floor, Ms Fuchs saw a second, partly stocked roll cage behind the pillar. She also observed a deposit of red-tinged oily liquid under that roll cage which extended into the aisle and into the path on which she had walked.
Ms Fuchs experienced an immediate ripping sensation and excruciating pain in the back of her right leg. She could not get up and was transported by ambulance to St Vincent’s Hospital.
Initial X-rays did not reveal a fracture. However, Ms Fuchs was subsequently diagnosed with an avulsion tear of the right hamstring tendon.
What injuries did the plaintiff suffer?
The parties agreed that the accident caused an avulsion tear of Ms Fuchs’ right hamstring tendon.
On 1 December 2020, an orthopaedic surgeon performed hamstring repair surgery and sciatic nerve neurolysis. The evidence also identified a minor traction injury to the sciatic nerve.
Ms Fuchs underwent further procedures connected with the injury, including procedures in August 2021 and November 2022. In April 2023, she underwent liposuction and scar revision surgery necessitated by the injury and previous operations.
Despite treatment and rehabilitation, Ms Fuchs continued to experience pain and physical restrictions.
The Court accepted that the injury continued to affect her ability to work and perform domestic activities. The extent of those restrictions, and their financial consequences, became central to the assessment of damages.
Did the Court find Coles negligent?
The Court did not make a contested finding that Coles was negligent.
Ms Fuchs commenced proceedings against Coles in the District Court of New South Wales in October 2023, alleging negligence and occupiers’ liability. The proceedings were subsequently transferred to the Supreme Court because the estimated value of the claim exceeded the District Court’s jurisdictional limit.
Until shortly before the hearing, liability, causation and the amount of damages remained in dispute.
Coles then amended its defence to admit liability. The parties also agreed that the plaintiff’s compensation would be reduced by 10% for contributory negligence.
As a result, the Court was not required to determine whether Coles had breached its duty of care or whether that breach caused the primary injury. The hearing proceeded as an assessment of the damages payable to Ms Fuchs.
This distinction is important. Fuchs v Coles does not establish that Coles or another supermarket will automatically be liable whenever a customer slips or falls. Liability was admitted in this particular proceeding rather than decided after a contested hearing.
How much compensation was awarded in Fuchs v Coles?
Ms Fuchs claimed total damages of $2,538,460. Coles submitted that damages should be assessed at $573,500.
The difference of almost $2 million primarily concerned:
- non-economic loss;
- past loss of earnings;
- future diminution of earning capacity; and
- future care.
After considering the medical, occupational, accounting and lay evidence, the Court awarded:
Head of damage | Amount awarded |
Non-economic loss | $297,480 |
Past out-of-pocket expenses | $65,000 |
Future out-of-pocket expenses | $55,772 |
Past loss of earnings | $45,000 |
Future diminution of earning capacity | $350,000 |
Past care | $67,123 |
Future care | $127,820 |
Total before reduction | $1,008,195 |
Less 10% for contributory negligence | $100,819.50 |
Final judgment | $907,375.50 |
Coles was also ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs.
Why was $297,480 awarded for non-economic loss?
Non-economic loss includes compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of amenities, disfigurement and loss of expectation of life.
Under section 16 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), the severity of a person’s non-economic loss is assessed as a proportion of a “most extreme case”.
Ms Fuchs submitted that her non-economic loss should be assessed at 50% of a most extreme case, producing an award of $402,000. Coles submitted that it should be assessed at 30%, producing an award of $185,000.
Having considered Ms Fuchs’ age, continuing pain, physical restrictions and the effect of the injury on her life, the Court assessed her non-economic loss at 37% of a most extreme case.
This resulted in an award of $297,480.
The assessment demonstrates that compensation is not determined solely by the medical diagnosis. The Court considers the nature, severity and duration of the injury and its effect on the particular person’s life.
What did Fuchs v Coles decide about past economic loss?
The assessment of past economic loss was one of the most significant issues in Fuchs v Coles.
Before the accident, Ms Fuchs worked as an architect and heritage consultant. She also held an interest in P & S Design and Construction Pty Limited, a design and construction business that she operated with her husband.
Ms Fuchs performed architectural work for the company, while her husband oversaw its building work. She also worked in cultural heritage and prepared heritage reports.
Ms Fuchs claimed $683,064 for past loss of earnings. Coles contended that the financial records did not establish the claimed loss and submitted that only $45,000 should be awarded.
The Court examined evidence about:
- the plaintiff’s wages;
- dividends paid by the company;
- her personal taxable income;
- the company’s revenue and profitability;
- the work performed by Ms Fuchs;
- the work performed by her husband and others; and
- changes in the way income was received after the accident.
The evidence showed that the company did not suffer an immediate downturn after the injury. Its revenue increased during 2021, while the plaintiff’s remuneration from the company also increased in later years.
The company’s post-accident profitability equalled or exceeded its pre-accident profitability. Ms Fuchs’ average taxable income was also higher during the post-accident period examined by the Court.
The Court accepted that income received as dividends can, in an appropriate case, form part of a claim for lost earning capacity. The legal characterisation of the payment is not necessarily decisive. What matters is whether the income genuinely represents a reward for the injured person’s own work.
However, dividends may also represent a return on:
- invested capital;
- company ownership;
- business goodwill; or
- work undertaken by other people.
Where company profit is generated partly by invested capital, goodwill or the work of another person, the entire profit cannot automatically be treated as income produced by the claimant’s personal exertion.
The Court found that the plaintiff’s proposed calculation did not reliably separate the value of her own work from income attributable to the other elements of the business.
The defendant’s accounting evidence identified a possible loss in the 2022 financial year. The Court ultimately awarded $45,000 for past economic loss rather than the $683,064 claimed.
Why did the Court reject the plaintiff’s past economic loss calculation?
The plaintiff’s accounting expert used a counterfactual approach that compared expected earnings without the accident against actual post-accident earnings.
However, the Court identified an inconsistency in the methodology.
The calculation of the plaintiff’s expected earnings included her wages and a share of the company’s business profit. By contrast, her share of business profit was excluded when calculating her actual post-accident earnings.
This asymmetry increased the apparent loss.
The Court also considered that business profit was not an appropriate direct measure of the value of Ms Fuchs’ labour. The company’s profit reflected more than her personal work. It also reflected capital, goodwill and the work of her husband and potentially others.
The judgment reinforces the need for a consistent comparison between the claimant’s pre-accident and post-accident earning position.
What does Fuchs v Coles mean for self-employed claimants?
The decision is particularly relevant to self-employed people, professionals, consultants, business owners and shareholders pursuing compensation for economic loss.
Evidence that a person cannot work as many hours, travel as frequently or perform the same physical duties does not automatically establish the amount of financial loss.
The claimant must identify:
- the earning capacity that has been lost or reduced; and
- the financial consequences that have resulted, or are likely to result, from that reduced capacity.
Relevant evidence may include:
- personal and company tax returns;
- business activity statements;
- profit and loss statements;
- wages and dividends received before and after the accident;
- invoices and time records;
- evidence of billable hours;
- lost clients, contracts or projects;
- evidence of work transferred to employees or business partners;
- the cost of employing replacement staff;
- evidence from accountants, colleagues and clients; and
- evidence about likely future work opportunities.
Business income may remain stable because another person has taken over the injured claimant’s responsibilities. Alternatively, revenue may change because of market conditions, restructuring or factors unrelated to the injury.
Careful evidence is therefore required to establish the connection between the injury, reduced working capacity and financial loss.
Why was a $350,000 future economic loss buffer awarded?
The largest difference between the parties concerned future diminution of earning capacity.
Ms Fuchs ultimately claimed $1,019,833 for future economic loss. Coles submitted that a buffer of $100,000 was appropriate.
A calculation advanced on behalf of Ms Fuchs assumed that, without the accident, she would have continued working as a heritage consultant and architect and could have charged approximately $160 per hour.
The Court did not accept that calculation as a reliable measure of future loss. It depended on several assumptions that were not adequately supported by evidence.
Those assumptions included:
- applying a heritage-consulting rate to a hypothetical architecture practice;
- assuming a high level of billable work;
- using gross professional fees without adequately accounting for tax and overheads;
- failing to distinguish billable from non-billable hours;
- making insufficient allowance for holidays and time away from work;
- failing to account adequately for periods of reduced demand; and
- insufficiently allowing for ordinary future uncertainties.
The Court nevertheless accepted that Ms Fuchs’ earning capacity had been genuinely reduced and that the reduction was likely to produce a future financial loss.
Sirtes J found that, but for the accident, Ms Fuchs would have continued performing valuable professional work into her 60s and would have worked until approximately 70 years of age.
Because the amount could not be calculated reliably, the Court awarded a buffer of $350,000.
A buffer is a lump-sum assessment that may be used where future financial loss is likely but cannot be quantified precisely using a conventional mathematical calculation.
What compensation was awarded for care and domestic assistance?
The Court awarded Ms Fuchs $67,123 for past care and $127,820 for future care.
Before the accident, Ms Fuchs performed most of the cooking, cleaning, shopping, laundry and gardening at home. Following the injury, she received assistance from family members and used commercial cleaning services.
The occupational therapy experts agreed that she would require approximately 2.5 hours of commercial domestic assistance each week.
However, they disagreed about the appropriate hourly rate.
The plaintiff’s expert used an NDIS price of $58.03 per hour. The defendant’s expert relied on the $35 per hour Ms Fuchs was paying her existing cleaner.
The Court found that the amount actually being paid for the service provided a firmer basis for assessing its market value than the upper NDIS price limit. An hourly rate of $40 was allowed.
The Court also allowed a limited amount for future gardening assistance. It was not satisfied that the evidence justified the claimed cost of employing a driver for work-related travel.
This part of the decision demonstrates the importance of documenting both paid domestic assistance and care provided without charge by relatives or friends.
Why was the award reduced by 10%?
The parties agreed that the plaintiff’s damages would be reduced by 10% for contributory negligence.
Contributory negligence refers to a failure by an injured person to take reasonable care for their own safety. If contributory negligence is established or agreed, the damages otherwise payable may be reduced by a percentage reflecting the claimant’s share of responsibility.
The Court assessed Ms Fuchs’ damages at $1,008,195 before applying the agreed reduction.
The 10% deduction reduced the final award by $100,819.50, leaving judgment for $907,375.50.
Because the percentage was agreed between the parties, the judgment did not involve a detailed contested determination of precisely how Ms Fuchs contributed to the accident.
Is $907,375.50 a standard Coles slip and fall payout?
No. The judgment in Fuchs v Coles does not establish a standard compensation amount for slipping at Coles or another supermarket.
The award reflected the evidence concerning:
- the severity and continuing effects of Ms Fuchs’ injury;
- her surgeries and rehabilitation;
- ongoing pain and physical restrictions;
- past and future treatment expenses;
- reduced earning capacity;
- the likely duration of her working life;
- past and future domestic assistance; and
- the agreed reduction for contributory negligence.
A different claimant may receive substantially more or less compensation depending on the seriousness of the injury, the strength of the liability evidence and the losses caused by the accident. Some claims may not succeed at all.
The $907,375.50 judgment should therefore be understood as an assessment of this plaintiff’s particular losses, not as a benchmark payout for all supermarket accidents.
What can injured shoppers learn from Fuchs v Coles?
Although Fuchs v Coles primarily concerned the assessment of damages, it highlights the importance of gathering evidence about every consequence of a serious injury.
Relevant evidence may include:
- medical records and expert reports;
- treatment and rehabilitation expenses;
- employment and financial records;
- evidence of reduced working capacity;
- business and accounting documents;
- records of care provided by family members; and
- invoices for cleaning, gardening and other paid assistance.
The decision also demonstrates why self-employed claimants may require particularly detailed financial and accounting evidence. A reduction in physical capacity must be connected to an identifiable past financial loss or a probable future economic disadvantage.
Injured in a Coles supermarket?
If you have been injured after slipping, tripping or falling at Coles, your entitlement to compensation will depend on how the accident occurred, whether reasonable precautions were taken and the losses caused by your injuries.
Being injured inside a supermarket does not automatically establish negligence or an entitlement to compensation.
For more information about supermarket liability, relevant evidence and the compensation that may be available, read our complete guide to Coles supermarket accident claims.
Stacks Goudkamp’s supermarket and shopping centre injury lawyers can assess the circumstances of an accident and advise whether a viable public liability claim may be available.
Call Stacks Goudkamp on 1800 251 800 or contact us online for a free initial consultation.
