Aldred v Stelcad Pty Ltd - [2015] NSWCA 201

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Aldred v Stelcad Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 201
Hearing dates: 14 April 2015
Date of orders: 16 July 2015
Decision date: 16 July 2015
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Emmett JA at [2];
JC Campbell AJA at [61]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: TORT – negligence – occupiers’ liability – scope of duty of care owed by the owner of commercial premises to an employee of the tenant of the premises – relevance of the existence of “dangerous defects” – whether any such duty was breached
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5C, 5D, 5G, 5H
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 151Z
Cases Cited: Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56; 205 CLR 166
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298
Lapcevic v Collier [2002] NSWCA 300
Loose Fit Pty Ltd v Marshbaum [2011] NSWCA 372
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris [1997] HCA 39; 188 CLR 313
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: David Aldred (Appellant)
Stelcad Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Sheldon SC with M Daley (Appellant)
N Polin SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Brydens Law Office (Appellant)
Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/189370
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Citation:

David Aldred v Stelcad Pty Ltd [2014] NSWDC 63

Date of Decision:

6 June 2014

Before:

Mahony DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/328270

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Emmett JA.
EMMETT JA: This appeal is concerned principally with the question of whether the owner of a factory should be held liable for damages suffered by a worker injured in the factory in the course of his employment by the tenant of the factory. The respondent, Stelcad Pty Ltd (Stelcad), owned premises situated at Ingleburn (the Premises). Amerind Pty Ltd (Amerind) was the tenant of the Premises under a lease granted to it by Stelcad on 7 August 2006 (the Lease). The appellant, Mr David Aldred, was injured in the Premises in the course of his employment by Amerind.
Mr Aldred sued Stelcad in the District Court of New South Wales, claiming damages on the basis that Stelcad owed him a duty of care, that Stelcad breached that duty and that, as a consequence, he suffered the injury in question. A judge of the District Court (the primary judge) entered a verdict for Stelcad and ordered Mr Aldred to pay Stelcad’s costs of the proceedings. Mr Aldred has now appealed to this Court from the orders of the District Court.
As will appear below, the terms of the tenancy between Stelcad and Amerind may have some bearing on whether Stelcad owed a duty to Mr Aldred and the content of that duty. It is therefore desirable to say something about the terms of the Lease before examining the circumstances of Mr Aldred’s injury.

The Lease

By the Lease, Stelcad demised the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aldred v Stelcad Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Aldred v Stelcad Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 201
Case: [2015] NSWCA 201
Decision Date: 16 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the scope of the duty of care owed by the owner of commercial premises to an employee of a tenant. The appellant, Aldred, was an employee of a tenant occupying premises owned by the respondent, Stelcad Pty Ltd. Aldred suffered injuries due to alleged "dangerous defects" on the premises. The primary dispute revolved around whether Stelcad, as the owner, owed a duty of care to Aldred, an employee of its tenant, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were twofold. Firstly, the court was required to determine the extent of the duty of care owed by a commercial landlord to the employees of its tenant in circumstances where there were alleged dangerous defects on the premises. Secondly, the court had to consider whether, assuming such a duty existed, Stelcad had breached that duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent Aldred's injury.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that while a landlord owes a duty of care to persons on the premises, the scope of that duty is generally limited to the landlord's control over the premises. In this instance, the court found that the alleged defects were not within the landlord's control, and therefore, no duty of care was owed to Aldred in respect of those defects. The court applied principles of occupiers' liability and negligence, emphasizing that a duty of care arises from the capacity to control the source of the danger. As Stelcad lacked the necessary control, it could not be held liable for the injuries sustained by Aldred.

The appeal was dismissed, and Stelcad Pty Ltd was awarded its costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Aldred v Stelcad Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 201
Hearing dates:	14 April 2015
Date of orders:	16 July 2015
Decision date:	16 July 2015
Before:	Macfarlan JA at [1]; Emmett JA at [2]; JC Campbell AJA at [61]
Decision:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:	TORT – negligence – occupiers’ liability – scope of duty of care owed by the owner of commercial premises to an employee of the tenant of the premises – relevance of the existence of “dangerous defects” – whether any such duty was breached
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5C, 5D, 5G, 5H Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 151Z
Cases Cited:	Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56; 205 CLR 166 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298 Lapcevic v Collier [2002] NSWCA 300 Loose Fit Pty Ltd v Marshbaum [2011] NSWCA 372 Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris [1997] HCA 39; 188 CLR 313
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	David Aldred (Appellant) Stelcad Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: R Sheldon SC with M Daley (Appellant) N Polin SC (Respondent) Solicitors: Brydens Law Office (Appellant) Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2014/189370
Publication restriction:	Nil
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court of New South Wales Citation: David Aldred v Stelcad Pty Ltd [2014] NSWDC 63 Date of Decision: 6 June 2014 Before: Mahony DCJ File Number(s): 2012/328270