Australia: Jones v Bartlett: When do I need to comply with evolving building standards to discharge my duty to a plaintiff?

Last Updated: 30 September 2016
Article by Pat O'Shea


Jones v Bartlett stands for the basic proposition that an owner of a residential premises does not owe a duty of care to a plaintiff to ensure that premises are updated to comply with ever evolving Australian Standards and Building Codes. At a basic level, if the residential premises complied with the Building Code and Australian Standards when constructed, then even if the defect which caused the accident is, at the time of injury, non-compliant with current Australian Standards and Building Codes, the owner/occupier will still escape liability.

It is important however for defendant owner/occupiers (and their insurers) not to become too reliant on Jones v Bartlett by overstretching its true implication, particularly in non-residential settings. The cases below examine this issue and highlight when non-compliance with current building standards is acceptable, and conversely, when it is unacceptable.

Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166

The plaintiff was severely injured when he walked into a glass door and it shattered. He was renting the property at the time.

The glass door complied with the building code when it was installed approximately 50 years before, however pursuant to updated standards, it did not comply at the time of the accident. The glass was very thin.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant landlord was negligent in:-

  1. failing to have an expert examine the premises when the lease commenced which would have identified the hazard; and
  2. failing to ensure that the glass met current standards.

Gummow and Hayne JJ relevant held, in dismissing the plaintiff's claim:-

  1. The landlord has a duty to repair defects that are known or that should reasonably have been known.
  2. Something will be defective if it is dangerous when being used in a regular fashion, and ordinarily would not be dangerous when so used.
  3. The landlord does not need to make regular inspections for defects during the tenancy. The steps a landlord is required to undertake are only those that would be taken in the course of "ordinary reasonable human conduct".
  4. There was no requirement for the landlord to obtain an expert inspection report;
  5. In regards to dangerous defects of which the landlord had known or reasonably should have known, the landlord will be responsible not only for tenants but also third parties.
  6. In this case, the glass door could not be seen as a "dangerous defect".

Skye Helen O'Meara v Dominican Fathers [2002] ACTSC 48

The facts were as follows:-

  1. The plaintiff fell from a balcony at the Australian National University (the University) in Canberra on 25 October 1996.
  2. The plaintiff, a 21 year old senior resident in the college and a student at the University, had attended a sports dinner at the college dining hall earlier in the evening and had then attended a bar area on the first floor of the college afterwards.
  3. Alcohol had been consumed during the evening.
  4. The plaintiff and other people had gathered on an outside balcony area. The plaintiff was wearing a ball gown and a high heeled shoes, and when she endeavoured to sit on the balcony ledge, she fell backwards and fell 5m to a garden area below the balcony.
  5. The plaintiff's claim against the University was that it was negligent in:-
  6. Permitting or allowing the construction of a balustrade that was of insufficient height and of too great a width, so that it formed a method of seating;
  7. Failing to warn students about the dangers of the balustrade;
  8. Failing to prohibit students from sitting on the balustrade when it knew or ought to have known that it was dangerous to do so; and
  9. Generally failing to supervise the students.

The plaintiff pleaded her case on the basis that the fact that the defendant University served and sold alcohol from the first floor bar and tavern meant that the University should have taken measures to improve the safety of the balustrade.

In relation to the construction of the balustrade, there was agreement between two building experts engaged by the plaintiff and the defendant respectively that:-

  1. the balustrade was constructed in or about 1967 and met the standards of the relevant Building Codes at the time of construction, but did not meet the present standards for new constructions. The balustrade was 870mm – 880mm high (the railing height in this matter is 855mm);
  2. the present Building Code of Australia, which was drafted in 1990 and came into force in various parts of Australia from 1993, requires a minimum height of 1 metre for balconies where there is a vertical drop of greater than 3m.

The Trial Decision

Master Connolly held as follows [at para 14]:-

"It seems to me to be consistent with the approach of the High Court in Jones v Bartlett to hold that there was no breach of duty of care in not renovating the balcony to reflect the 1993 Standards, even though there is evidence that, after this tragic accident, the college did make renovations, at relatively modest costs, to increase the height of the balcony by adding a steel rail. The relatively modest costs of replacement glass in Jones v Bartlett did not affect that result. Negligence is not here established merely by failure to implement the latest Building Code of Australia standard."

Master Connolly however stated that that was not the end of the matter. He was satisfied that it was not reasonable to require a general warning in relation to sitting on the balustrade. Master Connolly held that the situation may be different if the plaintiff established on the evidence that the University knew there was a general practice of students using the area to sit dangerously on the balustrade, and knowing of this dangerous practice, took no steps to prevent it and avoid the obvious risk of a student falling.

Master Connolly concluded that the plaintiff had not established that the University was in breach of a duty of care in tort or contract, and entered judgment for the University.

The Appeal

The University appealed the decision of Master Connolly.

Gyles and Weinberg JJ in allowing the Appeal (Crispin P in dissent):-


Master Connolly should have held on the available evidence that College authorities were aware of students sitting on balustrade for the following reasons:-

  1. The area was known as congregation point, and also known by those congregating there at night that it would be likely some would attempt to sit on balustrade.
  2. Once the risk/danger is known, it is necessary to balance the risk against the reasonableness of requiring precautions to guard against it.
  3. The University didn't lead any evidence to illustrate it had assessed the risk and rejected precautionary measures as unreasonable. The court held that it follows that some of precautions taken after accident should have been taken beforehand (necessary precautions were at little to no cost to the University). Further, any of the precautions taken after accident would have almost certainly prevented it from occurring in the first place.
  4. Whilst University claimed not to have actual knowledge of students sitting on balustrade, it ought to have known of the practice. If the University didn't know about it, they were derelict in exercise of duty of care towards students for whom they were responsible.


  1. College authorities bore a responsibility, under an implied term (Premises would be as safe for use by plaintiff as reasonable care and skill on part of respondent could make them), to monitor the conduct of persons on the premises so as to be able to recognise dangerous situations, or the development of dangerous practices, in order that appropriate measures could be utilised to guard against them.
  2. If correct in attributing to the University knowledge of the practice of students of sitting on the ledge, then it was clear that permitting such a practice would be breach of the implied contractual term.
  3. Further, given existence of the practice over a number of years, the University ought to have become aware of it and ought to have done something to prevent it. Not doing so was a breach of implied term.

Smith v Body Corporate for Professional Suites Community Title Scheme 14487 [2013] QCA 80

The plaintiff fell through glass in the foyer of a commercial building.

When the building was constructed in about 1971 the glass panel complied with the relevant Australian standards. Updated standards only permitted the installation of safety glass, and provided that if existing glass was replaced for any reason then the replacement glass should comply with the current standard.

During renovations approximately 10 years prior to the accident, some other glass in the building was replaced with safety glass.

The main liability issues for the court to consider was:-

  1. whether the body corporate breached its duty of care by failing to arrange an audit of the glass doors and walls to ascertain whether they complied with the prevailing Australian standards; and
  2. what the audit recommendations would have been.

The plaintiff failed to prove that the body corporate acted unreasonably by failing to organise an audit of the glass and then replace the existing glass with safety glass. The Court took into account:-

  1. the extraordinarily large number of people who uneventfully entered and exited the building over 30 years;
  2. the absence of any evidence that the body corporate knew or should have known that the glass had a propensity to break into dangerous shards when sufficient force was applied to it; and
  3. the potentially enormous cost of investigating and removing equally unlikely risks associated with other glass or materials throughout the common areas of the building.


While Jones v Bartlett is a very helpful case for defendant owners (and their insurers) when there is a breach of current standards but no breach when the building was constructed, a holistic examination of the facts and circumstances of each matter is critical in determining the actual usefulness of such a defence, in particular when the accident occurs in a commercial setting.

In that regard, the comments of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Jones v Bartlett [at 174] are pertinent, and should be relied upon by prudent readers as opposed to my humble conclusions as to the law in this space:-

"What constitutes to taking of reasonable steps will ... depend on all the circumstances of the case. What is reasonable of premises let for the purpose of residential housing may be less demanding than for premises let for such purposes as the running of a school, or the conduct of a hotel or club serving liquor."

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”

Related Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions