Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56

Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56

The landlords were not in breach of any duty—statutory, contractual, or at common law—as the glass door was not defective, the premises were fit for habitation, and there was no requirement in law or contract to upgrade to new standards absent evidence of defect or requirement. There was no evidence that the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Marc Jarrad Jones; Respondent: Graham Bartlett & Anor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia; Special Leave Appeal to High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Landlord's Duty of Care, Occupiers' Liability, Contributory Negligence, Tenancy Agreements, Statutory Liability, Third Party Rights Under Contracts
Tort Law Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence Landlord's Duty of Care Occupiers' Liability Contributory Negligence Tenancy Agreements +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marc Jarrad Jones

Appellant

Graham Bartlett & Anor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia; Special Leave Appeal to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord/respondents owed a duty of care to the appellant in respect of the state of the premises, specifically the glass door
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of any statutory or contractual duty by the landlords
  3. 3 Whether the appellant, as a non-party to the tenancy agreement, could enforce any contractual duties under s 11 of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA)

Ratio Decidendi

The landlords were not in breach of any duty—statutory, contractual, or at common law—as the glass door was not defective, the premises were fit for habitation, and there was no requirement in law or contract to upgrade to new standards absent evidence of defect or requirement. There was no evidence that the landlords knew or ought to have known of a relevant danger. Statutory provisions and common law did not impose a higher inspection or improvement duty; nor could the appellant, as non-party, enforce the lease under s 11. Accordingly, the appeal failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.