ASSAF v KOSTREVSKI; SALEH v KOSTREVSKI [1998] NSWCA 274

ASSAF v KOSTREVSKI; SALEH v KOSTREVSKI [1998] NSWCA 274

The owners owed a duty of care to make the premises safe for all lawful occupants and guests; the actions of the appellants in response to defects were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the owners' negligence. The claim against the agent was properly dismissed as he did not have the same duty, and any advice given was based on safe use of appliances.

Parties
Appellant: Mrs Ihssan Assaf; Appellant: Mrs Rafika Saleh; First Respondents (owners): Mr and Mrs Kostrevski; Second Respondent (agent): Elder and Rose Pty Ltd t/as Ray White Rockdale
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal upheld against owners; new trial ordered. Appeal dismissed against agent; claim rejected.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Landlord's Duty, Causation, Leased Premises
Tort Law Negligence Duty of Care Personal Injury Landlord's Duty Causation Leased Premises

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Ihssan Assaf

Appellant

Mrs Rafika Saleh

Appellant

Mr and Mrs Kostrevski

First Respondents (owners)

Elder and Rose Pty Ltd t/as Ray White Rockdale

Second Respondent (agent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the owners (landlords) owed a duty of care to tenants' guests for injuries caused by defects in leased premises
  2. 2 Whether the estate agent owed a duty of care and was negligent in giving advice about temporary lighting solutions
  3. 3 Whether causation was established between the premises defects and the injuries

Ratio Decidendi

The owners owed a duty of care to make the premises safe for all lawful occupants and guests; the actions of the appellants in response to defects were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the owners' negligence. The claim against the agent was properly dismissed as he did not have the same duty, and any advice given was based on safe use of appliances.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld against owners; new trial ordered. Appeal dismissed against agent; claim rejected.

Orders

  • Each appellant's appeal against the first respondents (owners) upheld.
  • Cross Appeal dismissed.