Greater Union Organization Pty Ltd v Pappas - [1967] HCA 17

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor and Windeyer JJ.

GREATER UNION ORGANIZATION PTY. LTD. v. PAPPAS

(1967) 116 CLR 475

5 June 1967

Landlord and Tenant—Ejectment

Landlord and Tenant—Notice to quit as to the whole of leased premises—Whether right to recover part of premises—Jurisdiction of magistrate—Landlord and Tenant Act, 1899-1964 (N.S.W.), ss. 22 (a), 23*. Landlord and Tenant—Prescribed premises—"Dwelling-house"—Shop and house on same premises—Notice to quit as to whole of premises—Whether part of premises not comprising dwelling house recoverable—Rights and obligations as to part not recovered—Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1948-1966 (N.S.W.), ss. 8 (1A)**, 62 (5) (m)**, 70 (2A) (b)**. Ejectment—Recovery of part only of property claimed.

Decisions

June 5.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. The appellant is the proprietor of land at the corner of Spit Road and Clifford Street, Spit Junction, Sydney, on which is erected a building which comprises a picture theatre, operated by the appellant, and eight shops for letting. (at p478)

2. The respondents on 23rd May 1966 were tenants to the appellant of one of these shops - a lock-up shop - and also of a dwelling situated behind one other of the shops and some forty feet away from the shop where they conducted a milk bar. The two premises were let to the respondents at a single rent by the one agreement. (at p478)

3. On 31st July 1964 the Department of Main Roads gave to the appellant notice of its intention to proceed with the widening and reconstruction of Spit Road as soon as possible. The Department's proposal affected the appellant's building as a whole. It necessitated an alteration of the building alignment by some eighteen feet. The appellant was thus involved in the demolition of portion of its building affecting the lock-up shop to a depth of eighteen feet and the separate dwelling, of which the respondents were tenants, to an extent of some eight square feet. (at p478)

4. On 23rd May 1966 the appellant served on the respondents notice to quit the premises the subject of the letting on the ground that they were reasonably required for reconstruction or demolition, particularizing the requirements of the Main Roads Board: see Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1948-1964 (the Act) s. 62 (5) (m). At this time the appellant had conceived a plan of reconstructing its building, including the dwelling let to the respondent. Its plan for this reconstruction had been submitted to the Department of Main Roads, but had not been submitted to any local government authority. (at p479)

5. As the respondents did not give possession according to the notice to quit, the appellants laid an information under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1899-1964 (the 1899 Act) in the appropriate Court of Petty Sessions seeking an order for possession of the whole of the premises let to the respondents. At the same time they filed a statutory declaration in compliance with s. 70A of the Act stating that they would provide and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Greater Union Organization Pty Ltd v Pappas and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1967] HCA 17
Decision Date: 5 June 1967

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability for injuries sustained by the respondent, Mr. Pappas, who fell from a ladder while working on premises leased by the appellant. The respondent alleged that the appellant had breached its duty of care by failing to ensure the ladder was safe for use.

The High Court was required to determine whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent in the circumstances, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court considered whether the appellant had taken reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury to persons lawfully on its premises, particularly in relation to the provision and maintenance of equipment such as ladders.

The court reasoned that a landlord owes a duty of care to persons lawfully on the leased premises to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. This duty extends to ensuring that any equipment provided by the landlord for the use of others is in a safe condition. In this instance, the court found that the appellant had failed to discharge its duty of care by not adequately inspecting or maintaining the ladder, which was known to be in a dilapidated state. The principles of negligence, including the foreseeability of harm and the standard of care expected of a reasonable landlord, were central to the court's determination.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in favour of the respondent was affirmed.

Orders