Property Owners Responsibilities Under Common Law
Historic court decisions (legal precedents), especially where children have been involved, have shown that owners can be held liable for negligence for not upgrading to the latest relevant Australian Standard, or Building Code, for any part of their building which has failed and contributed or caused an accident and/or injury – even where there is no Statute law requiring them to upgrade. The courts have found against owners and held in cases that where injury has occurred at a residential property, which involved materials or components of a structure that did not comply with the most modern day stipulations in the Australian Standards, Building Codes and NCC, that owners are either entirely, or partially responsible for the cause of the accident.
The courts do not accept an owner’s defence of ‘it was ok when it was built so why is it not ok now? This is despite the fact the owner may be completely correct (unless it is for something like a smoke alarm, safety switch or pool fencing etc – where there is statute law in place requiring upgrades be done). Rather, the courts rule that the property owner has a ‘Duty of Care’ under their Common Law obligations, to ensure the property complies to the most modern safety standards of the day, which in the court’s view would have potentially reduced the chances of an accident occurring.
As a property owner you must be aware of this and obviously carry out the necessary rectifications to ensure your property is compliant with modern requirements and therefore your legal liability would be greatly reduced (in the event of an accident). Notwithstanding the fact that for certain kinds of properties (older character type homes) the cost and feasibility of upgrading to ensure the property complied with modern standards would make it completely impractical and not feasible, as the cost to achieve this would be astronomical, but again, in the event of an accident that is completely irrelevant in terms of the court’s decisions and mounting a defence within practicality of making the house compliant because of costs would no doubt fall on deaf ears. It seems very strongly to be the case, that even in the event there is ambiguity in a court case, in relation to the facts and indeed the facts may favour the property owner considerably, the court’s decisions historically certainly seem to be awarded in favour of the claimant. The following are some examples of very common construction areas that are known to involve litigation and fall within this area being reported on however there are many more: Glazing, window openings, corded blinds, hand rails/balustrades. It is our recommendation that you engage a suitably qualified contractor to carry out an audit of your property and provide you with advice on how to make the house compliant to today’s standards so that the legal liability is greatly mitigated, or eliminated, in the unfortunate event of an accident occurring.