Occupiers’ liability – a possible challenge to the lawAuthors: Katherine Allsop
In Turjman v Stonewall Hotel Pty Ltd (Stonewall) the appellants argued that a significant change should be made to the law of occupiers’ liability.
The appellants argued that, in certain circumstances, occupiers’ tortious duties to entrants should be conflated with the implied warranties that exist in the contract between an occupier and an entrant, arising where payment for entry to the premises has occurred.
The challenge was not successful as the appellants were ultimately denied an opportunity to pursue on appeal a matter not agitated at trial. Accordingly, the issue remains live.
In the event that the common law ultimately evolves in the way contended for by the appellants, occupiers (and those insuring such entities) may well face significantly increased exposure.
In this article we discuss the challenge and its possible implications.
Significant cases, legislation or articles referred to
- Turjman v Stonewall Hotel Pty Ltd  NSWCA 392
- Stojan (No 9) Pty Ltd v Kenway  NSWCA 364
- State of New South Wales v Broune  NSWCA 3
- S.19 (2) Work Health and Safety Act 2011
- Hackshaw v Shaw  HCA 84 at 
- Australian Safeways Stores Pty Limited v Zaluzna (1986) 162 CLR 479 at 487 – 488
- Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166 at 
- Shaw v Thomas  NSWCA 169 at  and 
- Watson v George (1953) 89 CLR 409
- Caftor Pty Ltd t/as Mooseheads Bar & Cafe v Matthew Kook  ACTCA 19
- Gaskin v Ollerenshaw  NSWSC 791 at 
- Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963) 110 CLR 74
- Leighton v Fox  HCA 35