Nerida LYNISE Bailey v Lend Lease Funds Management Limited; t/as Woden Plaza and Anor
Case
•
[2013] ACTSC 56
•5 April 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Nerida LYNISE Bailey v Lend Lease Funds Management Limited; t/as Woden Plaza and Anor [2013] ACTSC 56
[2013] ACTSC 56
5 April 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Nerida Lynise Bailey filed a claim against Lend Lease Funds Management Limited, trading as Woden Plaza, and another party, alleging negligence and seeking compensation for injuries sustained from a slip and fall at the shopping centre. The dispute centred on whether the owner, Lend Lease, was liable for the injuries due to its management arrangement with a cleaning contractor. Additionally, Lend Lease sought indemnity or contribution from the contractor, arguing it was negligent in its cleaning duties. The court was required to determine whether Lend Lease could be held liable for the injuries despite delegating management responsibilities and whether the contractor was negligent in its contractual obligations.
The court examined the legal principles of occupiers’ liability and the effect of delegation of management on liability. It found that Lend Lease had successfully delegated the management of the shopping centre, thereby absolving itself from liability for the injuries. The court also assessed whether the cleaning contractor had breached its contractual duties or was otherwise negligent. There was insufficient evidence to prove any failure to observe contractual terms or any negligence on the part of the contractor. Regarding the assessment of damages, the court deemed the provisional assessment appropriate without raising any principle issues.
Following its findings, the court ruled in favour of Lend Lease and the contractor, dismissing Bailey’s claim against Lend Lease and the contractor’s liability. The court ordered that judgment be entered for Lend Lease, with Bailey to pay the associated costs of the action. Conversely, the court ruled in favour of the contractor, ordering Lend Lease to cover the costs incurred by the contractor.
The court examined the legal principles of occupiers’ liability and the effect of delegation of management on liability. It found that Lend Lease had successfully delegated the management of the shopping centre, thereby absolving itself from liability for the injuries. The court also assessed whether the cleaning contractor had breached its contractual duties or was otherwise negligent. There was insufficient evidence to prove any failure to observe contractual terms or any negligence on the part of the contractor. Regarding the assessment of damages, the court deemed the provisional assessment appropriate without raising any principle issues.
Following its findings, the court ruled in favour of Lend Lease and the contractor, dismissing Bailey’s claim against Lend Lease and the contractor’s liability. The court ordered that judgment be entered for Lend Lease, with Bailey to pay the associated costs of the action. Conversely, the court ruled in favour of the contractor, ordering Lend Lease to cover the costs incurred by the contractor.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Tort Law
Legal Concepts
-
Negligence
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Stringer & Stringer v Westfield Shopping Centre MANAGMENT Co (SA) P/L [2017] SADC 35
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
2
Timberland Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Bundy
[2005] NSWCA 419
Allcorp Cleaning Services Pty Ltd v Fairweather
[1998] NSWCA 12
Allcorp Cleaning Services Pty Ltd v Fairweather
[1998] NSWCA 12