Husain Jammal v and S Tadros

Husain Jammal brought an action against S Tadros, the property owner, for damages arising from a slip on a wet step outside Dr Tadros' consulting rooms. Jammal alleged that the step was in a defective condition and that Dr Tadros was negligent in failing to maintain it. Dr Tadros filed a cross-claim against the repairer, arguing that the step had been newly repaired but was still exposed to the elements, resulting in it being wet on the day of the accident. The primary legal issues before the court were whether Dr Tadros was negligent in maintaining the step and whether the repairer was liable for any defects in the repair.

The court found that Jammal had not established causation, specifically that the mud on the step or a defect in the construction caused the slip. The expert report presented by Jammal was deemed flawed due to inadequate testing of the step's surface. Consequently, Jammal failed to prove that the alleged breaches by either party caused the accident. The court also questioned whether the constructions predating the Building Code were subject to the Code. Ultimately, the court ruled that neither party had breached their duty of care, and therefore neither was liable for the accident.

The court entered a verdict and judgment in favor of both Dr Tadros and the repairer. Jammal was ordered to pay Dr Tadros' costs, and the repairer was ordered to pay the cross-claimant's costs. The court granted leave for the parties to apply to an Associate within 21 days to vary any cost orders made. The decision underscored the necessity for plaintiffs to establish causation and for expert evidence to be reliable and comprehensive.