Commex Communications Corporation Pty Ltd v Cammeray Investments Pty Ltd

The plaintiff, Commex Communications Corporation Pty Ltd, brought an action against the defendants, Cammeray Investments Pty Ltd and its tenant, seeking damages for injuries sustained by its employee, who fell through the roof of a commercial property owned by the first defendant and leased to the second defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the brittle sheeting of the roof constituted a dangerous condition which the defendants had negligently failed to remedy, and that the lessee's failure to discharge obligations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 contributed to the accident. The plaintiff also claimed that the lease agreement between itself and the second defendant included an implied term that the lessee would take reasonable care to ensure the safety of the plaintiff’s employee while working on the leased premises.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the brittle sheeting constituted a danger which the defendants had negligently failed to remedy, and whether the negligent acts were, in part, a failure to discharge obligations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. The court also had to determine whether the agreement between the plaintiff and the lessee of the premises included an implied contractual term that the lessee would take reasonable care to ensure the safety of the plaintiff’s employee while he worked on the lessee’s premises, and whether this term was breached due to the same negligent failures submitted to apply in the tortfeasor contribution claim.

The court found that the brittle sheeting did constitute a danger which the defendants had negligently failed to remedy. However, the court also found that the plaintiff's action against the second defendant for breach of an implied term in the lease agreement was not supported by the evidence. The court held that the first defendant was not liable for damages as the plaintiff had already compromised with the injured employee, and the second defendant was liable for the amount of the compromise payment. The court held that the second defendant was liable for the full amount of the compromise payment because the term implied in the lease agreement was a condition that went to the root of the contract, and its breach made the second defendant liable for the entire amount of the compromise payment.

The court ordered that judgment be given for the first defendant against the plaintiff and that judgment be given for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the amount of $107,989.00.