Davis, Colin Peter v Northern Territory Housing Commission - [1984] FCA 86

Re: COLIN PETER DAVIS
And: NORTHERN TERRITORY HOUSING COMMISSION (1984) 71 FLR 85
No. NTG 37 of 1983
Action against statutory authority - Statutes

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Toohey(1), McGregor(2) and Fitzgerald(3) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Action against statutory authority - Northern Territory Housing Commission - practice and procedure - striking out statement of claim - requirment of notice and limitation period - claim for damages for personal injuries by tenant - whether claim for things done or omitted to be done under Act - failure to exercise statutory power not omission under Act

Housing Act 1959 ss. 12, 12A, 26, 31, 35

Tenancy Act s.55

Rules of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory 0.23 r.15 029, r.4.

Statutes - Constuction - Whether breach of duty at common law "anything done or omitted" under Act constituting Housing Authority - Housing Act 1959 (N.T.) s. 35.

HEADNOTE

Held: An action for breach of implied covenants arising from a tenancy agreement or implied by the Tenancy Act 1979 (N.T.) s. 55 to keep the common parts of a block of flats in a clean and safe condition or in good repair and of a breach of duty owed to an invitee is not an action "for anything done or intended to be done or omitted to be done for or on behalf of (the respondent) under (the Housing Act 1959 (N.T.)" within the meaning of s. 59 of that Act, notwithstanding that under the Act the function of providing residential accommodation is vested in the respondent. Such duties as are pleaded do not arise under the Housing Act.

Knight v. Concord Municipal Council (1970) 3 N.S.W.L.R. 295, not followed.

Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v. Nattras (1972) A.C. 153; Trade Practices Commission v. Tubemakers of Australia Ltd (1983) 5 T.P.R. 321; Peisley v. Ashfield Municipal Council (1971) 23 L.G.R.A. 166; Heathwood v. Murgon Shire Council (1941) Q.S.R. 275; Bradford Corporation v. Myers (1916) 1 A.C. 242; Varga v. Jongen (1970) 72 S.R. (N.S.W.) 673; Board of Fire Commissioners of New South Wales v. Ardouin (1961) 109 C.L.R. 105; Fairman v. Perpetual Investment Building Society (1923) A.C. 74; Dunster v. Hossil (1918) 2 K.B. 795; Lamb v. Moss (1983) 49 A.L.R. 533; Benson v. Commissioner for Road Transport & Tramways (1935) 35 S.R. (N.S.W.) 348; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (S.S.) v. Singapore Harbour Board (1952) A.C. 452.

HEARING

Darwin, 1984, April 2, 6. #DATE 6:4:1984

G. E. Hiley, for the appellant.

S. A. Lewis, for the respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

Solicitors for the appellant: Waters James & O'Neil.

Solicitor for the respondent: J. B. O'Rourke, Crown Solicitor for the Northern Territory.

G.F.V.

ORDER

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia dated 28 October 1983 striking out the statement of claim and directing that judgment be entered for the respondent be set aside.

3. The respondent's chamber summons dated 23 September 1983 be dismissed.

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 Davis, Colin Peter v Northern Territory Housing Commission

Details

AGLC: Davis, Colin Peter v Northern Territory Housing Commission [1984] FCA 86 ((1984) 71 FLR 85)
Case: [1984] FCA 86
Decision Date: 06 APRIL 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Colin Peter Davis suing the Northern Territory Housing Commission. Davis claimed damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall at a housing property managed by the Commission. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, where the Commission sought to have the claim struck out. The court was tasked with determining whether Davis's claim was valid under the statutory framework and whether it complied with notice and limitation period requirements.

The legal issues centered on whether Davis's claim was for something done or omitted under the relevant Act, and if the Commission's failure to exercise a statutory power constituted an omission. The court had to interpret the statutory language and assess the nature of the claim against the legislative provisions. Furthermore, the court examined whether the Commission's actions fell within the scope of statutory immunity and whether the claim was time-barred.

The court found that the claim was not for something done or omitted under the Act, but rather an omission in the exercise of statutory power. However, the court held that the statutory provisions did not provide immunity for such omissions. Consequently, the court ruled that the claim was valid and not time-barred. The Supreme Court's decision to strike out the claim was set aside, and the summons was dismissed. The appeal was allowed with the respondent ordered to pay the costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia dated 28 October 1983 striking out the statement of claim and directing that judgment be entered for the respondent be set aside.

3. The respondent's chamber summons dated 23 September 1983 be dismissed.

4. The respondent pay the costs of the chamber summons in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia and the costs of this appeal.

Appeal allowed 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.