Gray v Queensland Housing Commission

Case [2004] QSC 276

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gray v Queensland Housing Commission [2004] QSC 276

PARTIES:

SUSAN LORRAINE GRAY
(plaintiff)
v
QUEENSLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
(defendant)

FILE NO:

SC No 9520 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 August 2004; 12 August 2004

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1.  Judgment for the defendant
2.  Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the action to be      

     assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – OCCUPIERS – where the plaintiff was the tenant of the defendant – where the plaintiff was injured as a result of slipping on high gloss tiles used throughout the demised premises – whether the defendant had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff tenant by allowing the high gloss tiles to remain in the demised premises – whether the defendant had failed to keep the demised premises in ‘good repair’ and in a state ‘fit for the [plaintiff] to live in’

Residential Tenancies Act 1994 (Qld), s 103(2), s 103 (3)

Bond v Weeks [1999] 1 Qd R 134
Fine v Geier [2003] QSC 073
Summers v Salford Corporation [1943] AC 283
Morgan v Liverpool Corporation [1927] 2 KB 131
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166

Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313

COUNSEL:

Mr M Grant-Taylor SC for the plaintiff

Mr W D P Campbell for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Bennett & Philp for the plaintiff

HBM Lawyers for the defendant

  1. By a

    n agreement to lease (‘the agreement’) dated 18 April 1997 the plaintiff became a tenant from the defendant of a house located at 44 St Clair Crescent, Wishart


    (‘the house’).  The term was ‘periodic beginning on the 18th … April 1997 … [to] continue until terminated in accordance with the [Residential Tenancies] Act.’ 


    The house was built between September and November 1992 and was bought by the defendant on 26 February 1997.  On 18 February 1999 the plaintiff slipped and fell on a ceramic tiled floor in the house and severely injured her left knee. 


    On 24 October 2001 she commenced these proceedings claiming damages in respect of her injury.

  1. The case pleaded against the defendant (by the Amended Statement of Claim dated


    17 May 2002) was:

‘5.Pursuant to Condition 8 of the Agreement, the Defendant as lessor … owed to the Plaintiff a contractual duty to ensure … during the tenancy that the premises and inclusions were in a reasonable state of repair and free from risk to health and safety.’[1] 

[1] Particulars of this paragraph added a reference to an obligation to keep the house in a fit condition

‘6.Further, it was an implied term of the Agreement that the Defendant …

(1)would take all reasonable precautions for the Plaintiff’s safety … during the term of the Agreement;

(2)not to expose the Plaintiff to risks of injury which were known or ought…

Continue reading Gray v Queensland Housing Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gray v Queensland Housing Commission [2004] QSC 276
Case
[2004] QSC 276
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gray v Queensland Housing Commission was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Gray, was a tenant of the defendant, the Queensland Housing Commission. Gray was injured after slipping on high gloss tiles at the premises which she rented from the defendant. The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging that it had breached its duty of care to her by allowing the high gloss tiles to remain in the demised premises and by failing to keep the premises in good repair and in a state fit for her to live in. The defendant denied these allegations.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether that duty had been breached. The court had to consider the nature of the relationship between the parties and whether that relationship gave rise to a special duty. The court also needed to determine whether the high gloss tiles were a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and whether the defendant had breached its contractual obligations to maintain the premises in good repair.

The court found that while the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, it did not extend to the maintenance of the premises in a state fit for the plaintiff to live in. The court held that the duty of care owed by the defendant was limited to taking reasonable care to avoid causing injury to the plaintiff. The court found that the high gloss tiles were not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The court also held that the defendant had not breached its contractual obligations to maintain the premises in good repair. As a result, the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the action to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the defendant

2. Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the action to be

assessed on the standard basis

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.