ON 22 MAY 1987, the report of Commissioner Justice T R Morling of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chamberlain convictions was released. The report concluded that there was a reasonable doubt as to the Chamberlains’ guilt.

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Occupiers Liability, Personal Injury, Torts

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7

March 10, 1987 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

NEGLIGENCE. OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY. INJURY. ON 10 MARCH 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; (1987) 162 CLR 479 (10 March 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/7.html

An occupier of premises owes a duty of care under the ordinary principles of negligence to take reasonable care for the safety of a person who enters the premises, irrespective of whether they are an invitee, trespasser or licensee.

Per Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ at 488:

“We think it is wholly consistent with the trend of recent decisions of this Court touching the law of negligence, both in this area of an occupier’s liability towards entrants on his land and in the areas which were the subject of consideration in San Sebastian Pty. Ltd. v. Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [1986] HCA 68; (1986) 68 ALR 161 and Cook v. Cook [1986] HCA 73; (1986) 61 ALJR 25; 68 ALR 353, to simplify the operation of the law to accord with the statement of Deane J. in Hackshaw, at pp.662-663:

‘… it is not necessary, in an action in
negligence against an occupier, to go through the
procedure of considering whether either one or
other or both of a special duty qua occupier and an
ordinary duty of care was owed. All that is
necessary is to determine whether, in all the
relevant circumstances including the fact of the
defendant’s occupation of premises and the manner
of the plaintiff’s entry upon them, the defendant
owed a duty of care under the ordinary principles
of negligence to the plaintiff. A prerequisite of
any such duty is that there be the necessary degree
of proximity of relationship. The touchstone of
its existence is that there be reasonable
foreseeability of a real risk of injury to the
visitor or to the class of person of which the
visitor is a member. The measure of the discharge
of the duty is what a reasonable man would, in the
circumstances, do by way of response to the
foreseeable risk.'”

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Contract, LAW FIRM, Remedies, Restiution, Unjust Enrichment

Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul [1987] HCA 5

March 4, 1987 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 4 MARCH 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul [1987] HCA 5; (1987) 162 CLR 221 (4 March 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/5.html

A builder was entitled to recover remuneration for building work done despite there being no written enforceable contract because the client had accepted the benefit and therefore was obliged under the doctrine of unjust enrichment or restitution to pay fair and just compensation for the benefit accrued.

Section 45 of the Builders Licensing Act 1971 (NSW) (which provided that a building contract is not enforceable unless in writing and signed) did not prevent a builder from bringing an action in quantum merit (“as much as he has earned”) for the work done and materials supplied.

A claim based upon quantum merit does not require there to be an implied contract. A claim in quantum meruit is based upon restitution or unjust enrichment.

1300 00 2088