LAPTHORNE -v- HOUSING AUTHORITY [No 2] [2018] WADC 18

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2018] WADC 18
Case No:	CIV:1463/2016	Heard:	20-24 NOVEMBER 2017
Coram:	O'NEAL DCJ	Delivered:	12/02/18
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	50	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Action dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	WAYNE EDWARD LAPTHORNE HOUSING AUTHORITY
Catchwords:	Statutory authority Scope of defendant's duty of care to tenants with physical limitations or disabilities Breach Causation Damages Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Civil Liability Act 2002 s 5W, s 5X Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 Residential Tenancies Act 1987 Disability Services Act 1993 (WA)
Case References:	Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56; (2000) 205 CLR 166 Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra [2009] HCA 15; (2009) 237 CLR 215

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : LAPTHORNE -v- HOUSING AUTHORITY [No 2] [2018] WADC 18 CORAM : O'NEAL DCJ HEARD : 20-24 NOVEMBER 2017 DELIVERED : 12 FEBRUARY 2018 FILE NO/S : CIV 1463 of 2016 BETWEEN : WAYNE EDWARD LAPTHORNE

Plaintiff

AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY

Defendant

Catchwords:

Statutory authority - Scope of defendant's duty of care to tenants with physical limitations or disabilities - Breach - Causation - Damages - Turns on own fact

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 s 5W, s 5X

Occupiers' Liability Act 1985
Residential Tenancies Act 1987
Disability Services Act 1993 (WA

Result:

Action dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr N F Morrissey

Defendant : Mr G Bourhill

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : CLP Legal Pty Ltd

Defendant : Moray & Agnew Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56; (2000) 205 CLR 166
Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra [2009] HCA 15; (2009) 237 CLR 215

O'NEAL DCJ

Introduction

1 Since about 1993 the plaintiff has lived in public housing provided by the defendant. Since 1994 he has suffered from a left hemiparesis, as a result of a stroke. Initially his left side was significantly paralysed. Early rehabilitation brought improvement in his condition, but for many years he has had weakness in his left leg and arm. He has other serious health problems, some related to chronic alcohol abuse.

2 From 2000 until the present, the plaintiff has lived in a house provided by the defendant on Bourne Street in Morley (the Bourne Street house). In 2014 and 2015 the plaintiff suffered a series of falls, which he alleges were a consequence of the unsuitability of the house for a person with disabilities like his. The injuries received in those falls were alleged to have caused the plaintiff damage and loss, including lost earning capacity.

3 The defendant was aware, prior to 2014, that the condition of the Bourne Street house posed certain risks of injury for the plaintiff because of his medical condition.

4 At trial the defendant put the plaintiff to proof of almost all factual issues arising in this case, from the occurrence of the three accidents alleged to have caused the plaintiff injury, to the measure of any…

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.

Continue reading Lapthorne v Housing Authority [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Lapthorne v Housing Authority [No 2] [2018] WADC 18
Case: [2018] WADC 18
Decision Date: 12 FEBRUARY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lapthorne v Housing Authority [No 2], the respondent, Mr Lapthorne, sought to hold the appellant, the Housing Authority, responsible for injuries sustained as a result of alleged negligence in maintaining the premises. The dispute centred on the Housing Authority's duty of care towards tenants with physical limitations or disabilities, and whether a breach of that duty had caused the injuries in question. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which held jurisdiction over the matter due to the statutory obligations and responsibilities at issue. The court was tasked with determining the scope of the Housing Authority's duty of care, whether the authority had breached that duty, the causation of the injuries, and the appropriate assessment of damages.

The legal issues before the court were multifaceted, requiring a detailed analysis of the statutory obligations imposed upon the Housing Authority, the standard of care expected, and whether the Housing Authority had breached its duty. The court also needed to consider whether the injuries were a direct consequence of any breach and, if so, to what extent the Housing Authority was liable. Furthermore, the court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages for the injuries sustained.

The court found that the Housing Authority owed a duty of care to its tenants, which extended to those with physical limitations or disabilities. However, the court held that the Housing Authority had not breached this duty, as the injuries were not caused by a failure on the part of the Housing Authority. The court determined that the injuries resulted from an unforeseeable and independent act of a third party, which was not within the scope of the Housing Authority's control. Consequently, the court dismissed the action, finding that the Housing Authority was not liable for the injuries sustained by Mr Lapthorne.

Orders

Orders of the court

Action dismissed

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.