CITATION: Cartwright v Villamoss Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] NSWDC 152 HEARING DATE(S): 25 June 2007, 26 June 2007, 27 June 2007, 28 June 2007, 29 June 2007, 2 July 2007 and 3 July 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:
3 August 2007JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Hungerford ADCJ DECISION: Verdict for plaintiff against first and second defendants in amount of $446,085.50. As to the cross-claims, first defendant entitled to contribution from second defendant in amount of $133,825.65 and second defendant entitled to contribution from first defendant in amount of $312,259.85. Parties to be heard on costs. CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - Personal injury - Leased residential premises - Injury to tenant - Accident on common passageway in home unit complex - Fall on a single step - Occupier's liability - Whether implied term in lease as to non-delegable duty of care owed by landlord to ensure safety of premises - Liability of architect/designer of premises - Contributory negligence of tenant - Apportionment of responsibility as between landlord and architect/designer - Damages - Contribution between defendants LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 15(3) and 16(2)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, ss 5(1)(c) and 5(2)CASES CITED: Ahluwalia v Robinson [2003] NSWCA 175
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301
Baulkham Hills Shire Council v Pascoe [1999] NSWCA 431
Boral Transport Ltd v Whitehead [2001] NSWCA 395
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1981) 149 CLR 337
Fennell v Supervision and Engineering Services Holdings Pty Ltd and Santos Ltd (1988) 47 SASR 6
Francis v Cockrell (1870) LR 5 QB 501
Francis v Lewis [2003] NSWCA 152
Griffith v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166
Maclenan v Segar [1917] 2 KB 325
New South Wales Department of Housing v Hume [2007] NSWCA 69
North Sydney Council v Plater [2002] NSWCA 225
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313
O'Meara v Domincan Fathers [2003] ACTCA 24
Owners Strata Plan 30889 v Perrine [2002] NSWCA 324
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Roads and Traffic Authority v McGregor [2005] NSWCA 388
Sheridan v Borgmeyer [2006] NSWCA 201
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327
Watson v George (1953) 89 CLR 409
Wilkinson v Law Courts Ltd [2001] NSWCA 196
Woolworths Ltd v Lawlor [2004] NSWCA 209PARTIES: Sandra Cartwright - Plaintiff
Villamoss Pty Limited - First Defendant/Cross-Claimant on Second Cross-Claim/Cross-Defendant on First Cross-Claim
Lino Mark Querin - Second Defendant/Cross-Claimant on First Cross-Claim/Cross-Defendant on Second Cross-ClaimFILE NUMBER(S): Matter No 5264 of 2005 COUNSEL: Mr DT Kennedy SC and Mr CJ Callaway (Plaintiff)
Mr RJ Cheney (First Defendant/Cross-Claimant on Second Cross-Claim/Cross-Defendant on First Cross Claim)
Mr IGB Roberts (Second Defendant/Cross-Claimant on First Cross-Claim/Cross-Defendant on Second Cross-Claim)SOLICITORS: Owen Hodge Lawyers (Plaintiff)
DLA Phillips Fox (First Defendant/Cross-Claimant on Second Cross-Claim/Cross-Defendant on First Cross…
Continue reading Cartwright v Villamoss Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Cartwright v Villamoss Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 152
- Case
- [2007] NSWDC 152
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Cartwright, a tenant, brought an action against Villamoss Pty Ltd, the landlord, and an architect, alleging that she sustained personal injuries due to a fall on a single step on a common passageway in her leased residential premises. The dispute was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Cartwright argued that the landlord owed her a non-delegable duty of care to ensure the safety of the premises, and that the architect was also liable for the design of the premises which contributed to her fall. The landlord and the architect, in turn, sought contribution from each other.
The court was required to decide whether an implied term existed in the lease that imposed a non-delegable duty of care on the landlord for the safety of the premises. Additionally, the court had to determine the extent of the architect's liability for the design of the premises, and whether the tenant's contributory negligence affected the apportionment of responsibility between the landlord and the architect. The court also had to assess the appropriate amount of damages for Cartwright, and determine the contribution between the landlord and the architect.
The court found that an implied term in the lease imposed a non-delegable duty of care on the landlord to ensure the safety of the premises. The court also found that the architect was liable for the design of the premises, which contributed to the plaintiff's fall. The court held that the tenant's contributory negligence did not absolve the landlord and the architect of their respective liabilities. The court apportioned 60% of the responsibility to the landlord, and 40% to the architect. The court awarded Cartwright damages in the amount of $446,085.50, and ordered that the landlord was entitled to contribution from the architect in the amount of $133,825.65, and the architect was entitled to contribution from the landlord in the amount of $312,259.85. The court reserved the issue of costs for further hearing.
In summary, the court found that the landlord and the architect were both liable for Cartwright's injuries, and apportioned responsibility between them. The court awarded damages to Cartwright, and ordered contribution between the landlord and the architect. The court reserved the issue of costs for further hearing.
The court was required to decide whether an implied term existed in the lease that imposed a non-delegable duty of care on the landlord for the safety of the premises. Additionally, the court had to determine the extent of the architect's liability for the design of the premises, and whether the tenant's contributory negligence affected the apportionment of responsibility between the landlord and the architect. The court also had to assess the appropriate amount of damages for Cartwright, and determine the contribution between the landlord and the architect.
The court found that an implied term in the lease imposed a non-delegable duty of care on the landlord to ensure the safety of the premises. The court also found that the architect was liable for the design of the premises, which contributed to the plaintiff's fall. The court held that the tenant's contributory negligence did not absolve the landlord and the architect of their respective liabilities. The court apportioned 60% of the responsibility to the landlord, and 40% to the architect. The court awarded Cartwright damages in the amount of $446,085.50, and ordered that the landlord was entitled to contribution from the architect in the amount of $133,825.65, and the architect was entitled to contribution from the landlord in the amount of $312,259.85. The court reserved the issue of costs for further hearing.
In summary, the court found that the landlord and the architect were both liable for Cartwright's injuries, and apportioned responsibility between them. The court awarded damages to Cartwright, and ordered contribution between the landlord and the architect. The court reserved the issue of costs for further hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
Verdict for plaintiff against first and second defendants in amount of $446,085.50. As to the cross-claims, first defendant entitled to contribution from second defendant in amount of $133,825.65 and second defendant entitled to contribution from first defendant in amount of $312,259.85. Parties to be heard on 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.