Legal Research
Cases
Gove v Black

Gove v Black

Case [2006] WASC 298 21 December 2006

Occupiers Liability

Breach of Statutory Duty

Professional Negligence

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: GOVE -v- BLACK & ORS [2006] WASC 298

CORAM: TEMPLEMAN J

HEARD: 6-9 & 13-21 NOVEMBER 2006

DELIVERED : 21 DECEMBER 2006

FILE NO/S: CIV 2375 of 1997

BETWEEN: SHARON LEE GOVE
Plaintiff
AND
RICHARD ASH BLACK
First Defendant
ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)
Second Defendant
THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175)
Third Defendant
CITY OF FREMANTLE
Fourth Defendant
DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM)
Fifth Defendant
HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204)
Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 2370 of 1997

BETWEEN :BARNABY PIERRE COLIN WOOD
Plaintiff
AND
RICHARD ASH BLACK
First Defendant
ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)
Second Defendant
THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175)
Third Defendant
CITY OF FREMANTLE
Fourth Defendant
DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM)
Fifth Defendant
HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204)
Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 2371 of 1997

BETWEEN :PAUL CHARLES BLACKMAN
Plaintiff
AND
RICHARD ASH BLACK
First Defendant
ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)
Second Defendant
THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175)
Third Defendant
CITY OF FREMANTLE
Fourth Defendant
DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM)
Fifth Defendant
HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204)
Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 2373 of 1997

BETWEEN :KYLE THEODORE PETERS
Plaintiff
AND
RICHARD ASH BLACK
First Defendant
ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)
Second Defendant
THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175)
Third Defendant
CITY OF FREMANTLE
Fourth Defendant
DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM)
Fifth Defendant
HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204)
Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 2374 of 1997

BETWEEN :MICHAEL ANTONY KUBA
Plaintiff
AND
RICHARD ASH BLACK
First Defendant
ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)
Second Defendant
THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175)
Third Defendant
CITY OF FREMANTLE
Fourth Defendant
DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM)
Fifth Defendant
HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204)
Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 2376 of 1997

BETWEEN :SHELLEY MERRILYN GOLLAN
Plaintiff
AND
RICHARD ASH BLACK
First Defendant
ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)
Second Defendant
THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175)
Third Defendant
CITY OF FREMANTLE
Fourth Defendant
DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM)
Fifth Defendant
HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204)
Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 2377 of 1997

BETWEEN :MARYANNE FIORE
Plaintiff
AND
RICHARD ASH BLACK
First Defendant
ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)
Second Defendant
THE OWNERS OF THE OLD SOAP FACTORY (STRATA TITLE PLAN 11175)
Third Defendant
CITY OF FREMANTLE
Fourth Defendant
DREXEL LONDON (A FIRM)
Fifth Defendant
HALPERN GLICK PTY LTD (ACN 008 729 204)
Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 2378 of 1997

BETWEEN :MIA LEE FARINOSI
Plaintiff
AND
RICHARD ASH BLACK
First Defendant
ASH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 007 949 395)
Second Defendant

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 Gove v Black

Details

AGLC: Gove v Black [2006] WASC 298
Case: [2006] WASC 298
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gove v Black arose in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, Gove, sought damages from the defendant, Black, who owned and resided in a converted factory unit on a strata title. The dispute centred on the catastrophic collapse of a balcony in the unit, which occurred without warning and caused injuries to Gove. Gove alleged that the collapse was due to the use of unsuitable timber in the construction of the balcony, a design defect, and the failure of the parties responsible to inspect, repair, and maintain the balcony.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues, including whether Gove and Black, as tenant and owner respectively, breached their common law duty to inspect, repair, and maintain the balcony. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the strata body corporate was in breach of its statutory duty under the Strata Titles Act 1966 (WA) to inspect, repair, and maintain the balcony. Another key issue was whether the local authority's inspection was adequate to issue a certificate of compliance, and finally, whether there was negligence on the part of the architects or engineers in designing the balcony or in failing to detect the use of non-specified timber.

The court examined the evidence regarding the design of the balcony, the materials used, and the adequacy of inspections. It found that the balcony was constructed with timber that was not specified in the design, leading to rot, and that the design itself was inadequate as the central post was not properly tied back to the wall of the building. The court held that both Gove and Black breached their duty to inspect, repair, and maintain the balcony. Furthermore, the court ruled that the strata body corporate was also in breach of its statutory duty. The local authority's inspection was deemed adequate for issuing the certificate, as it was unable to detect the non-specified timber. The court also found that there was no negligence on the part of the architects or engineers in the design or in failing to detect the use of non-specified timber.

The final orders of the court included a finding of liability against Gove, Black, and the strata body corporate for their breaches of duty, with damages to be assessed at a later date. The local authority was found not liable for its inspection and issuance of the certificate. The architects and engineers were also found not liable for their role in the design of the balcony or the failure to detect the non-specified timber.

Orders