DAVID LEONARD HARRIS v COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
GREGORY PHILLIP TOWNEY-KILBY v COMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
JAMES SULLIVAN v COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
[2013] ACTSC 186 (9 September 2013)
NEGLIGENCE – personal injury – claim by tenants against landlord for injury resulting from disruptive behaviour of neighbouring tenant of the same landlord – whether duty of care and scope of any duty – relationship between common law and Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 – liability of a public housing authority – consideration of UK authorities – no duty or breach of any duty established
CONTRACT – breach of contract – claim by tenants against landlord for personal injury – claimed breach of tenancy agreement provision requiring quite enjoyment of premises – breach not made out
Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act (Cth) s 48A
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 32, 34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 108, 109, 110, 112, 168
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 42
Housing Assistance Act 2007 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 9, 11 37
Housing Assistance Act 1987 (ACT) s 11
Human Rights Act 2002 (ACT) s 12
Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT) ss 47 – 51, 72, 115, 115A, 115B
Explanatory Statement for the Housing Assistance Bill 2006 (ACT)
Explanatory Statement for the Housing Assistance Ordinance 1987 (ACT)
Explanatory Statement for the Civil Law (Wrongs) Bill 2002 (ACT)
Explanatory Statement for the Civil Law (Wrongs) Amendment Bill 2003 (ACT)
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420
Aussie Traveller v Marklea Pty Ltd [1998] 1 Qd R 1
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Department of Housing v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and Anor [2003] NSWSC 150
Devenport v Commissioner for Housing in the ACT and Residential Tenancies Tribunal (2007) 210 FLR 325
Eliezer v Residential Tribunal (2001) 53 NSWLR 657
Faull v Commissioner for Social Housing for the ACT [2013] ACTSC 121
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540
Lyons v Commissioner for Housing [2004] ACTSC 126
Haig v Chesney [1925] SASR 82
Harris v James (1876) 35 LT 240
Hussain v Lancaster City Council [2000] Q.B. 1
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] 1 AC 874
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254
Mowan v Wandsworth London Borough Council (2001) 33 HLR 56
O’Leary v Islington London Borough Council (1983) 9 HLR 81
Peden v Bortolazzo [2006] 2 Qd R 574
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330
R v Shorrock [1994] QB 279
Smith v Scott [1973] Ch. 314
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna [(1987) 162 CLR 479
No. SC 611 of 2009, SC 612 of 2009, SC 364 of 2010
Judge: Master Mossop
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 9 September 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 611 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
BETWEEN:DAVID LEONARD HARRIS
Plaintiff
AND:COMMISSIONER…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Harris v Commissioner for Social Housing 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] ACTSC 186
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to address two primary issues: firstly, whether the Commissioner owed a duty of care to the tenants to prevent injury resulting from the actions of another tenant, and if so, whether this duty was breached; and secondly, whether the Commissioner breached the tenancy agreement by failing to provide the tenants with quiet enjoyment of their premises. The court considered the common law principles of negligence and the statutory provisions in the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002, alongside relevant UK authorities, to assess the scope and existence of any duty of care. Additionally, the court examined the terms of the tenancy agreement and the obligations it imposed on the Commissioner.
The court found that the Commissioner did not owe the tenants a duty of care to prevent injuries arising from the actions of another tenant. It held that there was no sufficient proximity or foreseeability to establish such a duty. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Commissioner did not breach the tenancy agreement by failing to ensure the tenants' right to quiet enjoyment, as the disruptive behaviour did not constitute a breach of the terms of the agreement. The court dismissed the tenants' claims on both grounds, finding no negligence or breach of contract on the part of the Commissioner. Consequently, the Commissioner was granted judgment in its favour.
In light of the court's findings, judgment was entered for the defendant, the Commissioner for Social Housing. The tenants' claims for damages were dismissed in their entirety. The court's decision underscores the limitations of landlord liability in cases involving the actions of third parties and the specific obligations imposed by tenancy agreements.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
There be judgment for the defendant.
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.