Aldred v Stelcad Pty Ltd

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.