A receptionist who tripped on a speed bump in a car park and broke her arm has seen her six-figure payout reduced on appeal. 

But she has still kept most of her compensation windfall, despite having driven and walked over the hump multiple times.

Grace Balacco, 67, fell while walking in a Bondi Junction carpark in May 2023 and sued the building's owners corporation, which was ultimately found liable for negligence in the NSW Supreme Court.

Ms Balacco said the incident occurred at about 5.15pm as she was walking back to her car after finishing work as a receptionist at an adjacent medical practice in the same building, where she worked for neurologist Dr Ron Granot. 

Although she had driven over the concrete speed hump and walked across it earlier that day, she said she was an infrequent user of the car park and it was 'darkish' at the time. 

The speed bump was unmarked. Ms Balacco noted other tripping hazards in the car park were painted yellow, but the speed hump was only painted after the incident.

Ms Balacco said she had parked there after the Australian Federal Police asked her to move her car because roadworks were being carried out nearby. 

She said due to a lack of available parking on the street she drove into the car park in question. 

The original trial judge found in favour of Ms Balacco, largely due to the carpark's inadequate lighting, and awarded her $385,484 in damages back in December 2024. 

During cross-examination, she accepted that she had driven over the first speed hump, then driven over the second one twice as she reversed into the parking space and was aware they were there. 

The owners corporation denied negligence, arguing the risk of tripping over the speed hump was known to Ms Balacco and constituted an obvious risk. 

It also submitted she would not have acted any differently even if the hump had been painted or marked.

Ms Balacco's win was later scaled back, with an appeal decision last week reducing the amount of compensation she will receive.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge had awarded too much in damages, ruling Ms Balacco had been overcompensated by including about $85,000 for future economic loss and roughly $50,000 for future domestic assistance.

However, the court rejected the owners corporation's argument that the judge had misunderstood the lighting conditions, or that the speed hump was an 'obvious risk' that did not need to be marked.

The Court of Appeal noted other tripping hazards in the car park had been clearly painted yellow, while the speed hump was not. 

It found that once some hazards are marked, people are entitled to expect that all similar hazards will be treated the same way. 

Leaving the speed hump unmarked meant it was less obvious than it would otherwise have been.

As a result, the court upheld the finding of negligence, meaning the owners corporation remained liable despite its appeal.

Sydney property lawyer Fadi Chahine said the speed hump had been in place unmarked in the car park since 1987.

'She was the first reported fall,' he told the Daily Mail.

'But the court had to decide whether leaving one hazard unmarked when others were clearly marked made it less obvious.

'Fair outcome or people should just watch where they're going?' 

Gilchrist Connell principal Nicole Norris said the decision raises the bar for owners corporations and controllers of carparks.

She said the bottom line is that inconsistent safety measures can make areas more dangerous, not less. 

'Where other 'irregularities' in carparks are identified with paint markings, a speed hump may not be found to be an obvious risk unless similarly identified,' she said.

'If an occupier is going to create any paint markings as warnings, it should be prepared to mark all potential hazards.'