In Eyles v Sydney Skydivers Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 53, the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, upholding the primary judge’s findings in a claim for injuries suffered during a training skydive. Regardless of whether aspects of the training regime were deficient, the Court found that the Appellant failed to establish the necessary causal connection between any breach and the accident, with the evidence instead supporting the conclusion that the injuries resulted from the Appellant’s own landing technique.
FACTS
The Appellant, Mr James Eyles, suffered serious leg injuries during a routine skydive while undertaking an accelerated free-fall course with Sydney Skydivers Pty Ltd. At the time of the incident, the Appellant was training to become a skydiving camera operator. He was also considered a qualified parachute packer and member of the Australian Parachute Federation.
On 1 October 2016, the Appellant completed two supervised solo jumps with instructor guidance via radio and hand signals. Although both jumps were considered successful, instructors noted the Appellant lost balance and dropped to one knee during his first landing.
On 30 October 2016, the Appellant completed another solo skydive at the Defendant’s aerodrome in Bowen, North Queensland. The Appellant was assisted by two instructors in the air and one on the ground directing him toward the landing target. The Appellant missed the target area and landed on a loose gravel runway, sustaining spiral fractures to his right tibia and fibula.
Issues in dispute
The primary judge dismissed the Appellant’s claim on the basis that, the Appellant had “reached out” with his right foot which was contrary to his training. The Court did consider that the Defendant was negligent in the fact they allowed the Appellant to drift over the runway before directing his approach, which was contrary to the operational manual.
The primary judge found the incident occurred due to the Appellant’s own incorrect landing technique and not due to the gravel runway.
The Appellant therefore advanced four grounds of appeal:
- The primary judge incorrectly identified the relevant risk of injury, which led to an error in the causation analysis;
- The primary judge erred in the finding under Section 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law concerning due care and skill and fit for purpose;
- The primary judge incorrectly characterised the “inherent risk”; and
- The primary judge erred in the finding that skydiving is considered a “dangerous recreational activity” as he was training for future employment.
Grounds of appeal
Ultimately, Justice Boddice (with Justices Mullins and Doyle concurring) upheld the primary judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal ground 1: causation
The Appellant’s causation argument ultimately failed because the Court considered the causation issue to be the manner of the landing rather than the gravel surface itself.
The primary judge found that the Appellant landed with his right leg extended, almost as though he was attempting to land upright, instead of keeping both legs together with his knees bent as he had been trained to do.
There was also very little evidence to suggest that the same injury would have been avoided had the Appellant landed in the same way on a different surface.
In those circumstances, the primary judge’s finding on causation was clearly open on the evidence, and the Court of Appeal found no appealable error.
Appeal ground 2: Australian Consumer Law (ACL)
The Appellant also alleged legal error in the primary judge’s finding that there had been no breach of the guarantees in ss 60 and 61 of the ACL. However, the Appellant’s counsel properly conceded that this ground depended on success on causation.
Once causation failed, this ground necessarily failed as well.
Appeal ground 3: inherent risk
The Appellant’s challenge to the application of s 16 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (CLA) was unsuccessful because it framed the inherent risk too narrowly.
The Court considered that the real risk was not simply being directed over the gravel runway, but the possibility that the Appellant would land incorrectly despite having been trained not to do so. The evidence showed that the Appellant had received proper instruction in performing a parachute landing roll, and that the technique could be safely executed on a range of surfaces, including gravel. The difficulty was not the runway itself, but the fact that the Appellant failed to apply the technique correctly during landing.
Appeal ground 4: “Dangerous recreational activity”
The Appellant’s argument on this issue was also unsuccessful.
Even if the relevant risk is framed at the same level of generality used in assessing breach, the primary judge did not err in concluding that the solo skydive was undertaken, at least in part, for enjoyment or personal satisfaction. That finding was reasonably open on the evidence and supported the conclusion that the Appellant was participating in a dangerous recreational activity at the time of the injury.
The Court was therefore satisfied that the activity fell within the scope of section 19 of CLA despite the Appellant’s suggestion that the jump had a training or professional purpose. The recreational element of the activity was enough to engage the statutory defence.
Case commentary
This case is a reminder that negligence claims in recreational activities often turn less on whether a Defendant made a mistake and more on whether that mistake caused the injury. Although the trial judge accepted that the skydiving operator had breached operational procedures by allowing the Appellant to descend over a gravel runway area, the Court ultimately held that this breach did not cause the injury.
In these types of cases, the Courts take a broader approach to the responsibility of those who participate in recreational activities. Parties who provide “high-risk recreational activities” do not need to remove the risk of every accident, in particular where those who are participating in the activity fail to properly apply training and instructions.
More broadly, the judgment demonstrates the continued significance of the “dangerous recreational activity” provisions in the CLA. The Court’s reasoning suggests that those who suffer a sporting or adventure injury face difficulty if the operator can show that appropriate warnings, supervision, and training were provided.
This article was written by Associate, Jemma Stutz.
