Knibbs v Sheteh, Sheteh, George Koolbanis t/as Lancelot Plumbing & Vlahos; George Koolbanis t/as Lancelot Plumbing v Vlahos [2017] NSWDC 119

Knibbs v Sheteh, Sheteh, George Koolbanis t/as Lancelot Plumbing & Vlahos; George Koolbanis t/as Lancelot Plumbing v Vlahos [2017] NSWDC 119

The plaintiff failed to discharge his onus of proving that the property was unsafe at the relevant time, where and when he fell, or that any defendant breached a duty of care. The Court preferred the evidence that the trench area was left flat, level and safe after Stage 2 works on 29 December 2012, rejected the plaintiff's photographic and witness evidence as unreliable, and drew adverse inferences from the failure to call relevant witnesses. The landlords discharged their duty by engaging a competent plumber; the third defendant was not vicariously liable for the fourth defendant, who was an independent contractor, and no residual duty to supervise was breached; and the fourth defendant...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Public Liability Personal Injury Negligence Claim With Cross Claims for Indemnity And/or Contribution / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdicts for all defendants against the plaintiff; both cross-claims dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall on Leased Residential Premises' 'liability of Absentee Landlord' 'duty of Care and Breach Under the Civil Liability Act 2002' 'independent Contractor and Alleged Employment Relationship' 'non Delegable Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'assessment of Damages']
['tort Law' 'negligence' 'personal Injury' 'public Liability' 'evidence'] ['slip and Fall on Leased Residential Premises' 'liability of Absentee Landlord' 'duty of Care and Breach Under the Civil Liability Act 2002' 'independent Contractor and Alleged Employment Relationship' 'non Delegable Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'assessment of Damages']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Public Liability Personal Injury Negligence Claim With Cross Claims for Indemnity And/or Contribution / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff established where and when he slipped and fell and the condition of the lawn at the time of the alleged accident.' 'Whether the first and second defendants, as landlords, breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff.' 'Whether the third defendant was liable for Stage 2 of the works performed by the fourth defendant, including whether the fourth defendant was an employee or independent contractor.' 'Whether the fourth defendant negligently performed the trench excavation and backfilling work.' "Whether adverse inferences should be drawn from the plaintiff's failure to call witnesses including Dr Farabi and Mr Dyde." "Whether contributory negligence would defeat or reduce the plaintiff's claim if primary negligence were established." 'What damages would have been assessed if liability had been made out.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to discharge his onus of proving that the property was unsafe at the relevant time, where and when he fell, or that any defendant breached a duty of care. The Court preferred the evidence that the trench area was left flat, level and safe after Stage 2 works on 29 December 2012, rejected the plaintiff's photographic and witness evidence as unreliable, and drew adverse inferences from the failure to call relevant witnesses. The landlords discharged their duty by engaging a competent plumber; the third defendant was not vicariously liable for the fourth defendant, who was an independent contractor, and no residual duty to supervise was breached; and the fourth defendant...

Court Disposition

Verdicts for all defendants against the plaintiff; both cross-claims dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the first and second defendants against the plaintiff;' 'Plaintiff to pay the costs of the first and second defendants;' 'Verdict for the third defendant against the plaintiff;' 'Plaintiff to pay the costs of the third defendant;' 'Verdict for the fourth defendant against the plaintiff;' 'Plaintiff to...