Hartigan v Commissioner for Social Housing in the Act

The case of Hartigan v Commissioner for Social Housing in the ACT involved a dispute concerning the Commissioner for Social Housing’s liability for injuries sustained by the plaintiff due to an attack by pitbull terriers kept by a tenant in public housing. The plaintiff sought to amend the statement of claim to introduce new grounds for liability against the Commissioner, specifically alleging that the Commissioner was liable as the keeper of the dogs. The ACT Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the Commissioner owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a visitor to the public housing premises, and whether the Commissioner could be held liable as the keeper of the dangerous dogs.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the Commissioner owed a duty of care to visitors to the public housing premises and whether the Commissioner could be held liable as the keeper of the pitbull terriers kept by the tenant. The court needed to determine whether the Commissioner had the capacity to control the risk posed by the presence of the dangerous dogs in the leased premises and whether the Commissioner was subject to any statutory or common law obligations to regulate the keeping of dangerous dogs within public housing.

The court held that there was no duty on the Commissioner to regulate the keeping of dangerous dogs in public housing as this was generally regulated by another authority. The court found that the dog did not form part of the state of the premises, and thus the Commissioner did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as a visitor. Additionally, the court determined that the Commissioner was not liable as the keeper of the dogs because the keeping of dangerous dogs was regulated by another authority. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to include the proposed new basis of liability against the Commissioner. The court entered judgment in favour of the Commissioner, with costs awarded to the defendant.

In summary, the court granted leave to amend the statement of claim but refused leave to add the proposed paragraphs relating to the Commissioner’s liability as the keeper of the dangerous dogs. The plaintiff was required to file an amended statement of claim by a specified date, and judgment was entered for the Commissioner, with costs awarded to the defendant.