Outline of the report
At the time of the inquiry into occupiers' liability, the common law on this subject was excessively technical and lacked uniformity. The outcome of a case would depend on the relationship between the occupier and the visitor - for example, whether they were invited onto the property or were trespassing. This process of classification often operated in an arbitrary manner.
During the course of the reference, the High Court handed down its decision in the case of Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987). In this case, the Court held that the rules described above should be abolished and that the law in this area should be governed by the general principles of negligence. This approach then became the law in the ACT. The ALRC, therefore, investigated the merits of the Safeway Stores decision to determine whether its principles should continue to have effect.
As a related issue, the Commission evaluated the English common law rule exempting landlords from liability to visitors (see Cavalier v Pope [1906] AC 428). Because, technically speaking, tenants were the occupiers of property, landlords could not be held liable for loss suffered by a person coming onto the leased property. It was uncertain whether this rule applied in Australia. One of the chief criticisms of this rule was its rigidity: it applied whether the landlord or the tenant was responsible for undertaking the repairs.
A draft Bill is included in the report.