Southport City Council Occupiers' Negligence Case Analysis

This case study analyzes a scenario involving Plenty Pizza and Pasta Pty Ltd, a business operating in Southport, Gold Coast, and the Southport City Council. The case revolves around a fire incident caused by a defective chimney in the leased shop. The analysis explores the legal principles of occupiers' liability, emphasizing the duty of care owed to visitors. It examines the responsibilities of the occupiers (Plenty Pizza and Pasta) and the landlord (Bill Smith), and the potential liability of the Southport City Council. The study considers the application of tort law, specifically negligence, to determine who is responsible for the damages and injuries resulting from the fire. The analysis considers the council's warning, the occupiers' failure to rectify the defect, and the landlord's role. The conclusion finds the occupiers primarily liable and discusses the legal claims Phoebe could make for her injuries. The case references relevant legal precedents and provides a comprehensive understanding of occupiers' liability in the context of negligence and defective premises.

Running head: OCCUPIERS NEGLIGENCE
OCCUPIERS NEGLIGENCE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1OCCUPIERS NEGLIGENCE
Issue
Whether any action can be brought against the Southport City Council by Bill and
Phoebe.
Rule
The occupiers have a liability towards the people who visit the land they are residing in
or occupying and they have a certain kind of duties towards the people who visit the land and a
certain duty of care towards the people who come to the land and the liability is supposed to be
on the occupier of the land if there is any kind of dangers which are taking place or arising in that
land. Therefore, negligent behavior would make the occupiers liable for any kind of harm that is
arising from the land due to the negligent behavior of the occupier. It can be seen in the case of
Woods v Multisport Holdings P/L (2002) CLR 4601. An occupier is considered to be a person
who has control over the happenings or the occurring in the premises that is occupied by him.
Therefore, the occupiers liability is based on control of the premises and not the ownership2.
There are no liabilities on the landlords of a premise or there are no implied duty on the
landlords other than providing the land or the premise to an occupier or tenant and the land has to
fit for habitation purposes. It can be seen in the case of Northern Sandblasting v Harris (1997)
188 CLR 3133. The scope and reasonableness of a landlord’s duty is considered to be
understood.
1 Woods v Multisport Holdings P/L (2002) CLR 460.
2 Goudkamp, James. "Reforming English Tort Law: Lessons from Australia." James
Goudkamp,'Reforming English Tort Law: Lessons from Australia'in Eoin Quill and Raymond J Friel (eds),
Damages and Compensation Culture: Comparative Perspectives (Hart Publishing 2016) ch 4 (2016).
3 Northern Sandblasting v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313.

2OCCUPIERS NEGLIGENCE
In Defective Dwellings there are buildings which are considered to be defective if they
are poorly designed. In this instance if an injury is caused due to the defectiveness of such a
dwelling then the court directs that the duty of care should have been owed to not only the owner
but it is also considered to be towards the person who has been injured due to this. The tenant or
that owner of such dwelling can claim for cost of that rectification which has been caused due to
the negligent behavior4.
Application
In the present scenario it can be seen that the chimney which was defective was
considered to be a fire hazard as informed by the Southport City Council as they had investigated
the defectiveness and the Plenty Pizza and Pasta Pty Ltd. about the condition of the chimney and
they even after being informed failed to rectify their mistake due to the financial difficulties. The
Southport City Council did not go for any kind of follow up order but had sent them the warning.
The Southport City Council had certain duties in order to take ensure safety of those citizens but
due to their budgets being low they had sent warnings to the occupiers of that place. Under the
tort of negligence the negligent behavior of the occupiers were the main concern as they could
not rectify the mistake and caused an injury to others and damages to themselves as they had to
face liquidation of the company after the big fire. The landlord had no responsibility since the
duty of the landlord to provide a habitable premise was performed and the landlord did not have
any kind of information regarding the defective chimney. Phoebe could claim compensation for
the injuries and damages caused to her because of the negligible behavior of the occupiers. No
action can be claimed against Southport City Council had performed the duties and informed
4 McGivern, Brenda, and Peter Handford. "Two problems of occupiers' liability: Part two-the occupiers'
liability and civil liability legislation." Melb. UL Rev. 39 (2015): 507.

3OCCUPIERS NEGLIGENCE
about the condition of the chimney to the occupiers and the occupiers were responsible for the
negligent behavior.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be understood that the occupiers were responsible for the negligible
behavior and the landlord along with Phoebe could claim for damages from them instead of
Southport City council.

4OCCUPIERS NEGLIGENCE
References
Goudkamp, James. "Reforming English Tort Law: Lessons from Australia." James
Goudkamp,'Reforming English Tort Law: Lessons from Australia'in Eoin Quill and Raymond J
Friel (eds), Damages and Compensation Culture: Comparative Perspectives (Hart Publishing
2016) ch 4 (2016).
McGivern, Brenda, and Peter Handford. "Two problems of occupiers' liability: Part two-the
occupiers' liability and civil liability legislation." Melb. UL Rev. 39 (2015): 507.
Northern Sandblasting v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313.
Woods v Multisport Holdings P/L (2002) CLR 460.