Australia: Does A Landlord Owe a Duty of Care Due to The Changing Need of Residents?

Curwoods Case Note
Last Updated: 12 May 2010
Article by Emma Sheehan

Judgment date: 22 April 2010

Vasilikopoulos v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2010] NSWCA 91

New South Wales Court of Appeal1

In Brief

A landlord does not owe a duty of care merely because previously suitable premises have become unsuitable by reason of the deteriorating physical condition of an occupant.


On 9 December 2007, Betty Vasilikopoulos (plaintiff), stepped out of the bathtub in her unit and fell to the floor causing her to fracture her left fibula above the left ankle joint. The unit was occupied under a tenancy agreement made on 10 September 1987 between the defendant, the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation as the landlord, and the plaintiff's husband. There was no suggestion the premises were not suitable for habitation at the time they were let.

On 12 September 2006 the plaintiff had a right knee replacement and on 12 June 2007 she had a left knee replacement. As a result of each surgery the plaintiff had difficulties accessing and egressing the shower in her unit, the shower being located above the bathtub. On 18 September 2006 the plaintiff's daughter notified the defendant that a grab handrail was required in the bathroom. The defendant treated the matter as a "fault" and gave the matter a "Priority 1" for remedial action. In late September 2007 the plaintiff fell onto her knees whilst getting out of the bathtub because the height of the bathtub was too high to comfortably negotiate safe egress. The plaintiff's general practitioner wrote to the defendant on 28 September 2007 requesting the shower "be fixed at the earliest to prevent her having another fall and injuring her knees." On 5 October 2007 another letter was written to the defendant requesting "immediate action especially in the bathroom and toilet area before a catastrophic accident occurred undoing whatever benefit was obtained by her operations".

Upon receipt of the correspondence dated 28 September 2007 the defendant arranged for a tradesman to attend the unit and inspect the bathroom in relation to making modifications to improve the plaintiff's safe use of the bathroom. On 12 November 2007 an occupational therapist employed by the Sydney South-West Area Health Service wrote to the defendant following a visit to the plaintiff's residence, in the presence of a representative of the defendant, setting out the modifications required to the bathroom to improve the plaintiff's safety. The modifications were subsequently undertaken commencing on 10 January 2008 and were completed on 7 February 2008 at a total cost of $8,965.79.

District Court of New South Wales

The plaintiff sued the defendant in negligence alleging that in its capacity as an owner/landlord of the unit it breached its duty of care to provide premises which were safe for use as a home. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant did nothing to modify the shower facilities in the bathroom to ensure they were suitable for her needs.

On 5 June 2009 Hungerford ADCJ handed down a decision in which he found the defendant did not have a duty of care to modify the shower facilities in the bathroom and even if it had a duty of care, it did not breach that duty. Hungerford ADCJ also found that if the defendant were liable he would assess the plaintiff's own contributory negligence at 10%.

At first instance the plaintiff argued the defendant had a duty of care to the plaintiff as the occupier of the premises. Specifically, she argued that although the bathtub was of a conventional type it became a defect following her operations due to its unsuitability for her. She also argued that the risk of injury associated with her use of the bathtub after her knee replacement surgery was foreseeable, and that the defendant was aware of it and failed to remedy the defect.

Hungerford ADCJ did not accept the defendant was an occupier of the unit. He found the defendant was the landlord, even perhaps the owner, of the unit but it did not occupy the premises. He further pointed out that the plaintiff was not a tenant but rather it was her husband who was a party to the landlord/tenant relationship with the defendant. The plaintiff was merely an occupant of the unit.

Hungerford ADCJ carried out a short review of the development of the law in Australia in respect of the nature and scope of the duty of care of a landlord to a tenant, or a tenant's household. The Judge started with the rejection of the rule in Cavalier v Pope as good law in Australia by the High Court in Northern Sandblasting v Harris2 . Hungerford ADCJ cited from the judgment of Gaudron J in the matter, who stated: 3

"the relationship between a landlord and those who constitute a tenant's household is one that gives rise to a duty on the part of the landlord to take reasonable care for their safety by putting and keeping the premises in a safe state of repair."

Hungerford ADCJ then noted the judgement of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Jones v Bartlett4 in which they said:

"Broadly, the content of the landlord's duty to the tenant will be conterminous with a requirement that the premises be reasonably fit for the purposes for which they are let, namely habitation as a domestic residence."

In this present case, the plaintiff did not argue that the bathroom itself was unfit for its intended purpose or unsafe for use, rather that it became unsuitable once she had undergone the two knee replacements. Hungerford ADCJ held that the premises had been let in a condition fit for it's primary use. His Honour did not accept that the bathtub became unsuitable and/or defective once the defendant knew the plaintiff had undergone the bilateral knee replacement surgeries.

Hungerford ADCJ therefore held that the defendant did not owe a relevant duty of care to the plaintiff. He further held that even if the defendant did owe the plaintiff a duty of care to modify the bathroom it did not breach its duty of care. In this regard, he held that the defendant took steps to arrange modification work to be undertaken and that the work was performed within a reasonable period of time. Furthermore, in the time between being advised of the need for the modification works and the works commencing the plaintiff had means available to her to ensure her safe access and egress from the bathtub.

Following the usual practice, Hungerford ADCJ went on to assess damages. He stated that if he were wrong on the issue of liability he would have assessed the plaintiff's damages in the sum of $56,861.90.

New South Wales Court of Appeal Decision

The plaintiff appealed the decision of the District Court on a number of grounds. The first was that his Honour erred in finding the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and secondly that the defendant had not breached that duty of care. The plaintiff also appealed Hungerford ADCJ's assessment of quantum.

The Court of Appeal highlighted that the factual matrix of this matter was different to the case of a person suing under a contract of tenancy or a visitor to premises slipping and falling because of a defect in common property. Young JA, who delivered the unanimous judgment of the court, warned that care must be taken when applying principles from cases that appear factually related.

The Court of Appeal noted the plaintiff had not specifically pleaded that the Department of Housing owed her an obligation because it knew that she was a tenant with particular vulnerability.

On appeal the plaintiff submitted that when the defendant became aware of the plaintiff's need for bathroom modifications it was sympathetic and indicated it would take steps to effect modifications. The plaintiff argued these actions imposed upon the defendant a duty to do what it promised and its failure to do so was negligent. In the Court of Appeal the plaintiff relied upon the decision in New South Wales Department of Housing v Hume5 where McColl JA held that a landlord is only required to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances. Young JA stated that the difference between the Hume matter and the current matter was that in this matter there was no problem with the condition of the unit when the plaintiff's husband commenced the tenancy in 1987, it being at that time fit for its intended purpose.

The plaintiff also argued that s 5 of the Housing Act 2001 includes objects such as ensuring that public housing and community housing reflects the housing standards of the general community and is designed to cater for the ongoing needs of consumers. The Court of Appeal pointed out this section was not pleaded. The plaintiff indicated it was not alleged there was any liability in relation to breach of the Housing Act. Rather, it was one of the circumstancesto be taken in to account to determine if the defendant owed a duty and, if so, the nature and content of it.

The defendant maintained that it did not owe a relevant duty of care. It further submitted that as a government instrumentality it is involved in the administration of a considerable amount of public housing. The fact that it did not take action about a complaint for a period of six months did not necessarily establish a breach of any duty, even if there were a duty owed.

The Court of Appeal declined to overturn the trial judge's findings that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. Young JA stated:6

"In the present appeal it seems to me that there was no duty, that the learned primary judge was correct in saying there was no duty on this particular landlord despite what it might have said, just because the premises which were fixed when let, had become unsuitable by reason of the deteriorating physical condition of an occupant."

The Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to consider the plaintiff's appeal in relation to quantum given its findings in relation to liability. Young JA did however note that the damages appeared to be within the permissible range on the evidence available to the trial judge.


The High Court decision of Jones v Bartlett7 confirmed that a lessor of residential premises owes a duty of care to an incoming tenant to repair defects of which the landlord was aware or ought to have been aware at the commencement of the tenancy. The principles are further refined and clarified in this decision. The decision is authority for the proposition that the changing needs of occupants in otherwise safe residential letting do not impose a duty of care on the landlord to modify the safe premises.

It must be remembered that the outcome may have been different if the plaintiff was the tenant with whom the defendant contracted and there was a contractual promise to repair, or an undertaking to modify the bathroom at the commencement of the tenancy so as to form part of the contract. In other words the common law duty of care, if a duty is found to exist, may be varied by the terms of the lease. The matter may have also been decided differently if the plaintiff suffered a disability before she went in to occupation and the defendant knew this and let the premises when it was unsuitable due to the plaintiff's disability.

1 Young JA, Handley AJA and Sackville AJA
2 (1997) 188 CLR 313
3 (1997) 188 CLR 313 at 358
4 (2000) 205 CLR 166 at 215
5 [2007] NSWCA 69
6 [2010] NSWCA 91 at [30]
7 (2000) HCA 56

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.