Dwight v Supljeglav

Case [2015] NSWDC 26


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Dwight v Supljeglav [2015] NSWDC 26
Hearing dates:12,13 and 21 November 2014
Decision date: 20 February 2015
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff

Catchwords: TORT – negligence – personal injury – duty of care – duty of care owed by landlord – obvious risk – contributory negligence – damages
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) ss 5B, 5K ,9 and 12
Occupier’s Liability Act 1985 (WA) ss 5 and 9
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) s 42
Cases Cited: Baker v Gilbert [2003] NSWCA 113
Bevillesta Pty Limited v Liberty International Insurance Co [2009] NSWCA 16
Carey v Lake Macquarie City Council [2007] NSWCA 4
Department of Housing and Works v Smith (No 2) (2010) 265 ALR 490
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 207 CLR 166
Laresu Pty Limited v Clark [2010] NSWCA 180
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Robyn Dwight (Plaintiff)
Milos Supljeglav (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
R Royle (Plaintiff)
S Torrington (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Stacks Goudkamp (Plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore (Defendant)
File Number(s):2013/00187439

INDEX

The Accident – paragraph 2

What Time did the Accident Occur – paragraph 8

What were the Arrangements with the Landlord – paragraph 19

Were the Lights working at the Time of the Accident – paragraph 22

Duty of Care – paragraph 53

Breach of Duty – paragraph 63

The Risk Was Foreseeable – paragraph 64The Risk Was Not Insignificant – paragraph 67

In the Circumstances, would a Reasonable Person in the Person’s Position have taken those Precautions – paragraph 69

Social Utility – paragraph 70

Delegation of Duty – paragraph 72

Obvious Risk – paragraph 82

Causation – paragraph 85

Contributory Negligence – paragraph 87

Damages – paragraph 88

Out of Pocket Expenses – paragraph 107

Non-Economic Loss – paragraph 113

Economic Loss – paragraph 114

Summary of Damages – paragraph 121

Judgment

  1. The Plaintiff brings proceedings against the Defendant, Milos Supljeglav, alleging an accident, which occurred on 23 June 2010 at the house known as xx Alexandra Drive, Menora, Western Australia, in which it is claimed that she fell due to an unilluminated staircase, occasioning injury. The Defendant owned the premises and its rooms were rented out to students. The Plaintiff’s daughter Hayley Dwight [1] had been a student at the Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts [2] and was returning to Sydney after staying at the Defendant’s property.

    1. Hereinafter referred to as Ms Dwight

    2. Hereinafter referred to as the Academy.

  2. On the day before the accident the Plaintiff gave evidence that she and her husband, Dean Dwight [3] had travelled from Sydney to Perth for the purpose of assisting her daughter with her departure back to Sydney on the Indian Pacific on 23 June 2010.

    3. Hereinafter referred to as Mr Dwight

THE ACCIDENT

  1. The Plaintiff’s evidence was that on arrival in Perth she and her husband were picked up by Ms Dwight and taken to…

Continue reading Dwight v Supljeglav

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dwight v Supljeglav [2015] NSWDC 26
Case
[2015] NSWDC 26
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dwight v Supljeglav involved the plaintiff, Dwight, suing the defendant, Supljeglav, for negligence in relation to a personal injury suffered by the plaintiff. The dispute centred on whether the defendant, as the landlord, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether that duty was breached. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, whether this duty was breached by the defendant's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the injury. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff's contributory negligence impacted the damages awarded.

The court found that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as the landlord. It was determined that the risk of injury was obvious and the defendant should have taken reasonable steps to prevent it. The court noted that the plaintiff had also contributed to the injury through their own negligence, which impacted the assessment of damages. Ultimately, the court held that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries, and awarded damages to the plaintiff after taking into account the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The Supreme Court of Victoria delivered a verdict and judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant was found to be liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff and was ordered to pay damages, adjusted to reflect the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff

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.