Department of Housing and Works v Smith [No 2]

The case of Department of Housing and Works v Smith [No 2] involved a dispute between the Department of Housing and Works, as the landlord, and Ms Smith, the tenant, who sustained injuries after falling on a lawn in a block of residential units. The respondent alleged that she was injured due to a small depression in the lawn, which the appellant failed to address, leading to her fall and subsequent injuries. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant was negligent in failing to rectify the defect and, if so, whether this constituted a breach of duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA).

The primary legal issues before the court included the scope of the appellant's duty of care to the respondent, the interaction between common law principles of negligence and statutory provisions, and the question of causation. The court had to consider the statutory provisions of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), and how these applied to the facts of the case. Furthermore, the court examined whether the appellant's failure to fill in the depression in the lawn amounted to a breach of duty of care, and if this breach directly caused the respondent's injuries.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the appellant did owe a duty of care to the respondent as an occupier under the statutory provisions. The court held that the appellant's failure to fill in the depression in the lawn constituted a breach of this duty. The court determined that the depression was a foreseeable hazard that could have caused injury, and that the appellant's inaction was a significant contributing factor to the respondent's fall. The court concluded that the appellant's breach of duty of care directly caused the respondent's injuries, and that the respondent was entitled to compensation. The court awarded damages to the respondent, reflecting the severity of her injuries and the appellant's failure to mitigate the risk.

The final orders of the court included the awarding of damages to the respondent for her injuries and the costs associated with the proceedings. The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent the sum of $50,000 in damages, along with interest and costs as determined by the court. The court emphasised the importance of landlords and occupiers taking reasonable steps to maintain safe premises and fulfilling their duty of care to those lawfully on the property.