ELLIOT JAMES LAWRENCE STONE v THE OWNERS - UNITS PLAN 1214 AND NECTARIA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND DEBRA NOMINEES PTY LTD AND HAWKESBURY NOMINEES PTY LTD
[2012] ACTSC 164 (25 October 2012)
OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY- Alleged fall from unguarded retaining walls on property boundaries - inadequacy of evidence to establish cause of injury - negligence of defendants in failing to guard retaining walls - whether liability avoided in circumstances of no prior history of accident or where independent contractors engaged in design and construction of developments - extent of duty of care of defendants to intoxicated plaintiff - extent of contributory negligence of intoxicated plaintiff - assessment of damages
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT)
Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club (2007) 217 CLR 469
Francis & Ors v Lewis [2003] NSWCA 152
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305
March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
NSW Department of Housing v Hume & Anor [2007] NSWCA 69
Roads and Transport Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330
Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd (2006) 226 CLR 161
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
No. SC 214 of 2008
Judge: Sidis AJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 25 October 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 214 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
BETWEEN:ELLIOT JAMES LAWRENCE STONE
Plaintiff
AND:THE OWNERS UNIT - PLANS 1214
First Defendant
NECTARIA NOMINEES PTY LTD
Second Defendant
DEBRA NOMINEES PTY LTD
Third Defendant
HAWKESBURY NOMINEES PTY LTD
Fourth Defendant
ORDER
Judge: Sidis AJ
Date: 25 October 2012
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Verdict and judgment for the defendants.
The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings. This order is suspended to allow any application for a special costs order to be listed in the week commencing 22 October 2012.
The exhibits will be retained for 28 days.
My reasons are published.
Mr Elliot James Lawrence Stone was very seriously injured on 22 March 2005, his 27th birthday.
An unknown person telephoned the Australian Federal Police and reported that the plaintiff was lying in a pool of blood in the driveway to a parking area within the property jointly owned by Nectaria Nominees Pty Ltd, Debra Nominees Pty Ltd and Hawkesbury Nominees Pty Ltd (referred to in these reasons as the second defendant). The second defendant’s property comprised the commercial development known as Lakeview Square.
The first defendant, The Owners – Units Plan 1214, was the registered proprietor of the adjoining property known as Miramar Apartments.
The plaintiff claimed that he suffered injury when he fell from a height of about 3.5 metres from the first defendant’s property onto the second defendant’s property.
The plaintiff’s claim against the fifth defendant was resolved prior to the hearing of the action.
The claim raised the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff in fact fell in the manner claimed.
2. Whether there was negligence…
Continue reading Elliot James Lawrence Stone v The Owners - Units Plan 1214 a...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Elliot James Lawrence Stone v The Owners - Units Plan 1214 and Nectaria Nominees Pty Ltd and Debra Nominees Pty Ltd and Hawkesbury Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] ACTSC 164
- Case
- [2012] ACTSC 164
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence presented regarding the cause of the plaintiff's injury and found it insufficient to conclusively determine that the fall occurred from the retaining wall. This lack of clear evidence led to a significant obstacle in establishing liability. Furthermore, the court assessed the defendants' arguments concerning the absence of prior accidents and the involvement of independent contractors in the design and construction of the developments. Despite these arguments, the court held that the defendants had a duty to ensure the safety of the premises, which included guarding the retaining walls. However, the court also considered the plaintiff's state of intoxication and found that it contributed to his fall, reducing the extent of the defendants' liability.
The court concluded that while the defendants were negligent in not guarding the retaining walls, the plaintiff's intoxication played a substantial role in the accident. The court found that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was significant, and as a result, the defendants were not liable for the full extent of the plaintiff's damages. Consequently, the court delivered a verdict and judgment in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for compensation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Verdict and judgment for the defendants.
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.