Barrett v Short

The applicant, Barrett, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned the duty of care owed by occupiers of domestic premises to social entrants, specifically in relation to the safety of a balcony.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the general duty of care owed by occupiers to all entrants, as established in *Zaluzna*, should be limited in the context of domestic premises and social visitors. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that occupiers of domestic premises owe social entrants only a duty to protect against dangers of which they know or have received warning, thereby effectively reading down the broader duty of care established in *Zaluzna*.

The applicant contended that the Court of Appeal's approach equated the duty owed to social entrants with the pre-*Zaluzna* position of a licensor, which imposed a lesser obligation. The applicant argued that *Zaluzna* preserved a continuing duty on occupiers to maintain and inspect their premises, and that the Court of Appeal's findings regarding the balcony railing, which was accepted as a source of severe danger if not properly maintained, were not justified by the evidence. The applicant further submitted that a member of the Court of Appeal had wrongly disagreed with the primary judge's inferences drawn from photographic evidence of a weathered and cracked plank, which suggested a need for maintenance and repair.