What happened
The plaintiff occupied a flat at the rear of friends’ property under a rental arrangement and slipped on wet tiled stairs while attending to washing in March 2019. The Court found that, by November 2018 at the latest, an earlier slip on the same tiles and ensuing conversations had given both owners actual notice that the surface was dangerously slippery when wet.
The issues
The negligence issue was whether the owners failed to take reasonable precautions against a known slipping risk and thereby caused the injury. The insurance dispute asked whether exclusions connected with the unapproved secondary dwelling applied and, if so, whether the insurer had clearly informed the insureds of their effect for s 35 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth).
The court's decision
The Court found breach and causation because the owners took none of the inexpensive measures available, such as slip-resistant nosing, grip tape, a handrail or warning signs. The final orders entered judgment for AUD 102,508.20 against the defendants and gave the insured owners judgment on their cross-claim requiring the insurer to meet their liability, relevant costs and defence costs.
Understanding the figures
The final judgment entered on 10 August 2023 was AUD 102,508.20, with the defendants also ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis. This differs from the initial AUD 101,457.50 total at [150], and the preserved final orders do not separately itemise the increase.
What this case shows
The case illustrates the distinction between having no general obligation to commission expert slip testing and having to respond reasonably once an occupier receives concrete notice of a hazard. It also shows that an exclusion may apply as a matter of construction yet remain unavailable where merely supplying a complex policy does not clearly explain its operation for s 35.
Why another case may differ
Quantum was constrained by substantial pre-existing conditions and the plaintiff’s pre-accident work history; no chef-related economic loss was allowed, although loss from a small gardening business was recognised. The reasons table stated AUD 101,457.50, but after the commercial-care issue was added the final orders entered AUD 102,508.20, which is the controlling figure used here.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →