Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963) 110 CLR
The plaintiff was injured by the collapse of a stage in a hall occupied by the defendant council. The hall had been hired to an association, but without the association becoming a tenant, for the purpose of its use by the plaintiff and his fellow members, and perhaps without the plaintiff himself entering into contractual relations with the occupier.
It was held that the letting of the hall for the meeting did technically create a tenancy that would not be the end of the matter.
The hall was kept by the Council for the ordinary purposes of a public hall and let out for use for short periods. The measure of that duty was the same as that laid down by Francis v. Cockrell.
Sir Victor stated (p.93): "It is, however, true that to attract a liability according to the principles of Francis v. Cockrell it is generally said that the admission of the public to the premises must be for reward to the defendant occupier. But that, it seems to me, is not because the duty is contractual. Rather it is because in such cases the liability is in effect similar to that in the earliest cases on the law of tort, those concerning the common callings, such as carrier, innkeeper, smith. The liability for negligence in cases of that sort arises from want of care in a public business that the defendant carries on. It matters not whether the plaintiff or someone else was to pay him for his services to the plaintiff."
Therefore it was not essential that the beneficiary of the duty should himself be in contractual relations with the occupier.
This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Administrative Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.
