Schneider v AMP Capital Investors Ltd; Schneider v Kent Street Pty Ltd; AMP Office and Industrial Pty Ltd v AMP Capital Investors Ltd; (“Schneider v AMP Capital Investors Ltd”)

In the case of Schneider v AMP Capital Investors Ltd, the plaintiff, Schneider, sought damages for alleged injuries sustained in a lift incident at a building managed by the defendant, AMP Capital Investors Ltd. The plaintiff claimed that the lift had stopped out of level with the fixed floor, causing her to trip and fall, which allegedly exacerbated her pre-existing cervical spondylosis. The court was required to determine whether AMP Capital Investors Ltd owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether this duty was breached, leading to her injuries. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the alleged fall had permanently exacerbated the plaintiff's cervical spondylosis.

The court addressed the issue of whether AMP Capital Investors Ltd had a duty of care to ensure the lifts were in a safe condition and whether this duty was breached by failing to institute an appropriate maintenance regime. The court found that AMP Capital Investors Ltd did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff in relation to the maintenance of the lifts and lift foyers. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not established a breach of this duty. The evidence showed that the lift had stopped out of level, but the plaintiff failed to prove the exact dimension of the trip hazard that caused her to fall. The court further found that the plaintiff had not proved that the alleged fall had permanently exacerbated her pre-existing cervical spondylosis due to an incomplete pre-accident history provided to the post-accident treating specialist, and a competing diagnosis of an unchanged idiopathic pain disorder.

The court ultimately held that AMP Capital Investors Ltd was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The court found that the plaintiff had not proved the necessary elements to establish negligence or the exacerbation of her cervical spondylosis. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims against AMP Capital Investors Ltd were dismissed. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the other defendants, Kent Street Pty Ltd and AMP Office and Industrial Pty Ltd.