{"id":"occupiers-liability-act-1985","name":"Occupiers' Liability Act 1985","slug":"occupiers-liability-act-1985","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"wa","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":105862,"registerId":"wa-occupiers-liability-act-1985-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Occupiers' Liability Act 1985","content":"![Crest]()Western Australia\n\nOccupiers’ Liability Act 1985\n\nWestern Australia\n\nOccupiers’ Liability Act 1985\n\nContents\n\n1. Short title 1\n\n2. Terms used 1\n\n3. Act binds Crown 1\n\n4. Application of s. 5 to 7 1\n\n5. Duty of care of occupier 2\n\n6. Negligence of independent contractor 3\n\n7. Duty not restricted or excluded by contract 3\n\n8. Preservation of higher obligations 4\n\n9. Duty of care of landlord 4\n\n10. *Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors’ Contribution) Act 1947* 5\n\nNotes\n\nCompilation table 6\n\nDefined terms\n\n  \n\nWestern Australia\n\nOccupiers’ Liability Act 1985\n\nAn Act prescribing the standard of care owed by occupiers and landlords of premises to persons and property on the premises.\n\n##### 1. Short title\n\nThis Act may be cited as the *Occupiers’ Liability Act 1985* 1.\n\n##### 2. Terms used\n\nIn this Act, unless the contrary intention appears —\n\n  occupier of premises means person occupying or having control of land or other premises;\n\n  premises includes any fixed or movable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft.\n\n##### 3. Act binds Crown\n\nThis Act binds the Crown.\n\n##### 4. Application of s. 5 to 7\n\n(1) Sections 5 to 7 shall have effect, in place of the rules of the common law, for the purpose of determining the care which an occupier of premises is required, by reason of the occupation or control of the premises, to show towards a person entering on the premises in respect of dangers —\n\n(a) to that person; or\n\n(b) to any property brought on to the premises by, and remaining on the premises in the possession and control of, that person, whether it is owned by that person or by any other person,\n\nwhich are due to the state of the premises or to anything done or omitted to be done on the premises and for which the occupier of premises is by law responsible.\n\n(2) Nothing in sections 5 to 7 shall be taken to alter the rules of the common law which determine the person on whom, in relation to any premises, a duty to show the care referred to in subsection (1) towards a person entering those premises is incumbent.\n\n##### 5. Duty of care of occupier\n\n(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) the care which an occupier of premises is required by reason of the occupation or control of the premises to show towards a person entering on the premises in respect of dangers which are due to the state of the premises or to anything done or omitted to be done on the premises and for which the occupier is by law responsible shall, except in so far as he is entitled to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude by agreement or otherwise, his obligations towards that person, be such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that that person will not suffer injury or damage by reason of any such danger.\n\n(2) The duty of care referred to in subsection (1) does not apply in respect of risks willingly assumed by the person entering on the premises but in that case the occupier of premises owes a duty to the person not to create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or his property and not to act with reckless disregard of the presence of the person or his property.\n\n(3) A person who is on premises with the intention of committing, or in the commission of, an offence punishable by imprisonment is owed only the duty of care referred to in subsection (2).\n\n(4) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), in determining whether an occupier of premises has discharged his duty of care, consideration shall be given to —\n\n(a) the gravity and likelihood of the probable injury; and\n\n(b) the circumstances of the entry onto the premises; and\n\n(c) the nature of the premises; and\n\n(d) the knowledge which the occupier of premises has or ought to have of the likelihood of persons or property being on the premises; and\n\n(e) the age of the person entering the premises; and\n\n(f) the ability of the person entering the premises to appreciate the danger; and\n\n(g) the burden on the occupier of eliminating the danger or protecting the person entering the premises from the danger as compared to the risk of the danger to the person.\n\n##### 6. Negligence of independent contractor\n\n(1) An occupier is not liable under this Act where the damage is due to the negligence of an independent contractor engaged by the occupier if —\n\n(a) the occupier exercised reasonable care in the selection and supervision of the independent contractor; and\n\n(b) it was reasonable in all the circumstances that the work that the independent contractor was engaged to do should have been undertaken.\n\n(2) Subsection (1) does not operate to abrogate or restrict the liability of an occupier for the negligence of his independent contractor imposed by any other Act.\n\n##### 7. Duty not restricted or excluded by contract\n\n(1) The duty of an occupier of premises under this Act, or his liability for breach thereof, shall not be restricted or excluded by the provisions of any contract to which the person to whom the duty is owed is not a party, whether or not the occupier of premises is bound by the contract to permit such person to enter or use the premises.\n\n(2) This section applies to contracts entered into before the commencement of this Act as well as to contracts entered into after its commencement.\n\n##### 8. Preservation of higher obligations\n\n(1) Nothing in this Act relieves an occupier of premises in any particular case from any duty to show a higher standard of care than in that case is incumbent on him by virtue of any enactment or rule of law imposing special liability or standards of care on particular classes of persons including, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the obligations of common carriers and bailees.\n\n(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the rights, duties and liabilities arising from an employer and employee relationship where it exists.\n\n##### 9. Duty of care of landlord\n\n(1) Where premises are occupied or used by virtue of a tenancy under which the landlord is responsible for the maintenance or repair of the premises, it shall be the duty of the landlord to show towards any persons who may from time to time be on the premises the same care in respect of dangers arising from any failure on his part in carrying out his responsibilities of maintenance and repair of the premises as is required under this Act to be shown by an occupier of premises towards persons entering on those premises.\n\n(2) Where premises are occupied or used by virtue of a sub‑tenancy, subsection (1) shall apply to any landlord who is responsible for the maintenance or repair of the premises comprised in the sub‑tenancy.\n\n(3) Nothing in this section shall relieve a landlord of any duty which he is under apart from this section.\n\n(4) This section applies to tenancies created before the commencement of this Act as well as to tenancies created after its commencement.\n\n##### 10. *Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors’ Contribution) Act 1947*\n\nThe *Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors’ Contribution) Act 1947* applies to claims under this Act.\n\n![dline]()\n\nNotes\n\n1 This reprint is a compilation as at 8 May 2015 of the *Occupiers’ Liability Act 1985*. The following table contains information about that Act. The table also contains information about any reprint.\n\nCompilation table\n\n| **Short title** | | **Number and year** | **Assent** | **Commencement** |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| *Occupiers’ Liability Act 1985* | | 52 of 1985 | 28 Oct 1985 | 25 Nov 1985 |\n| **Reprint of the *Occupiers’ Liability Act 1985* as at 26 Jul 2002** | | | | |\n| **Reprint 2: The *Occupiers’ Liability Act 1985* as at 8 May 2015** | | | | |\n\n\nDefined terms\n\n*[This is a list of terms defined and the provisions where they are defined. The list is not part of the law.]*\n\n**Defined term Provision(s)**\n\noccupier of premises 2\n\npremises 2\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Unable to assess whether the scope of the Act changed from its original intent — the legislative text was not available for analysis. No determination can be made responsibly without access to the actual provisions."},"complexity_factors":["Insufficient source material — the legislative text was not retrievable, preventing meaningful complexity assessment","Occupiers' liability laws generally involve multi-factor duty of care tests which add moderate complexity","Distinctions between categories of entrants (invitees, licensees, trespassers) can create layered legal analysis","Interaction with common law negligence principles and other statutes (e.g. Civil Liability Act) adds interpretive complexity","Score is conservatively low due to absence of actual legislative content to assess"],"plain_english_summary":"## ⚠️ Content Unavailable\n\nThe actual text of the **Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA)** could not be retrieved — the source page is no longer accessible due to a website migration.\n\n### What we know about this law in general terms:\nThe Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 is a Western Australian law that governs the **legal duty of care owed by people who control or occupy land or premises** (called \"occupiers\") to people who enter that property. It affects:\n- **Property owners, landlords, and businesses** who have a duty to keep their premises reasonably safe\n- **Visitors, customers, and members of the public** who may be injured on someone else's property\n- **Trespassers**, who may have limited but still recognised protections\n\nThe law matters because it determines **who is legally responsible** if someone is injured on a property — for example, slipping in a supermarket, falling on a neighbour's path, or being hurt at a construction site.\n\n> ⚠️ **Important:** Because the full legislative text could not be retrieved, no detailed or reliable legal analysis can be provided. Please access the current version directly via the [Western Australian Legislation website](https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au) or contact Parliamentary Counsel's Office."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"source":"grok-batch-everything"},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Act has not grown beyond its original 1985 purpose of codifying and simplifying the standard of care owed by occupiers and landlords in place of common-law rules. Reprints up to 2015 contain no amendments that expand the classes of protected persons, add new heads of liability, or widen the definition of premises."},"complexity_factors":["Partial displacement of common-law rules while expressly preserving identification of the duty-holder (s. 4(2))","Tiered duties of care with two distinct exceptions for voluntary assumption of risk and criminal entrants (s. 5(2)–(3))","Non-exhaustive list of seven contextual factors that must be weighed when assessing breach (s. 5(4))","Separate but interlocking regimes for independent contractors (s. 6), contractual exclusion (s. 7), higher statutory obligations (s. 8) and landlords (s. 9)","Cross-reference to the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors’ Contribution) Act 1947 without reproducing its text (s. 10)"],"plain_english_summary":"**The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1985 (WA)** is a law that sets clear rules for how careful a person who controls land or buildings (called an occupier) must be toward anyone who comes onto that property. \n\nInstead of relying on old judge-made rules, the Act says an occupier must take **reasonable care** in all the circumstances so that visitors and their belongings do not get hurt by hazards on the property (s. 5(1)). This covers dangers from the building’s condition or from things the occupier did or failed to do. \n\nThere are important exceptions: if a visitor knowingly accepts a risk, the occupier only has to avoid deliberately harming them or acting recklessly (s. 5(2)). People who are on the premises to commit a serious crime get only this lower level of protection (s. 5(3)). The Act lists seven practical factors courts must consider when deciding if the occupier did enough (s. 5(4)), such as how serious the risk was, the visitor’s age, and how hard it would be to fix the danger. \n\nIt also states that occupiers are generally not liable for the negligence of carefully chosen independent contractors (s. 6), prevents contracts from cutting off the rights of people who were not part of the contract (s. 7), preserves stricter duties that exist under other laws (s. 8), and places similar repair-and-maintenance duties on landlords (s. 9). \n\nThe law applies to the Western Australian government itself (s. 3) and works alongside rules about shared fault in accidents (s. 10). It affects everyday situations such as slips in shops, injuries on farms, or accidents in rental homes, giving both property controllers and visitors a straightforward way to understand their legal position."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act alters the legal method for deciding what care an occupier must show by replacing the common‑law rules with a statutory test for the matters covered by sections 5–7 (s 4(1)). It extends the statutory standard explicitly to damage to property brought onto the premises (s 4(1)(b)), binds the Crown (s 3), and imposes a parallel maintenance/repair duty on landlords where the tenancy makes them responsible (s 9). The Act preserves which person owes a duty (s 4(2)) and leaves higher statutory or common‑law duties intact (s 8), so the scope change is one of method and coverage (statutory factors and explicit inclusions) rather than a wholesale removal of other forms of liability."},"complexity_factors":["Statutory replacement of parts of the common law for determining occupier care (s 4(1)) requires courts to adapt existing precedents to the statutory test.","Open \"reasonableness\" standard with a multi‑factor list (s 5(1), s 5(4)) creates case‑by‑case judicial assessment rather than a bright‑line rule.","Multiple exceptions and qualifications (assumed risk s 5(2); criminal entrants s 5(3); independent contractor defence s 6) add conditional complexity.","Interaction between occupier's ability to vary obligations by agreement (s 5(1)) and the prohibition on excluding duties by contracts to which the injured person is not a party (s 7) creates a textual tension requiring interpretation.","Preservation clauses that keep higher statutory or common‑law duties in force (s 8) and that save other statutory liabilities from being abrogated by the independent‑contractor defence (s 6(2)) increase cross‑statute interaction.","Landlord duties that apply to past and future tenancies (s 9(1), s 9(4)) widen practical coverage of the Act.","Application to both persons and property brought onto premises (s 4(1)(b)) broadens the kinds of loss covered and the evidence needed to prove damage."],"plain_english_summary":"# What this law changes, who it affects, and how it works\n\n- Mechanical change first: sections 5 to 7 of this Act operate in place of the common‑law rules for deciding what care an occupier must show to people who come onto premises, and to property they bring with them, where the danger arises from the state of the premises or from acts/omissions on the premises (s 4(1)). The Act does not change who, in relation to a particular premises, owes any duty of care (s 4(2)).\n\n- Official description of purpose: the Act sets out the standard of care owed by occupiers and landlords to people and to property on their premises. That description is the statutory claim of purpose stated at the head of the Act.\n\n- Definitions and reach: an \"occupier\" is a person occupying or having control of land or other premises; \"premises\" includes fixed or movable structures and expressly includes vessels, vehicles and aircraft (s 2). The Act binds the Crown (s 3).\n\nWhat the Act requires and how it operates\n\n- Basic duty: an occupier must take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that a person entering the premises will not suffer injury or damage from dangers that arise from the state of the premises or from things done or omitted on the premises for which the occupier is legally responsible (s 5(1)). The same rule applies to damage to property that a visitor brings onto the premises (s 4(1)(b)).\n\n- Factors for assessing \"reasonable\" care: when deciding whether the occupier has met the duty, courts must consider the gravity and likelihood of probable injury, the circumstances of entry, the nature of the premises, what the occupier knows or ought to know about people or property being on the premises, the age of the entrant, the entrant's ability to appreciate the danger, and the burden on the occupier to eliminate or guard against the danger compared with the risk (s 5(4)).\n\n- Limitations and exceptions:\n  - If a person willingly assumes a risk, the duty in s 5(1) does not apply; but even then the occupier must not deliberately create danger with intent to harm or act with reckless disregard for the person's presence (s 5(2)).\n  - A person on the premises committing, or intending to commit, an imprisonable offence is owed only the limited duty referred to in s 5(2) (s 5(3)).\n\n- Independent contractors: an occupier is not liable for damage caused by the negligence of an independent contractor if the occupier exercised reasonable care in selecting and supervising the contractor and it was reasonable for that work to be done by a contractor (s 6(1)(a)–(b)). This defence does not remove any liability imposed on occupiers by other Acts (s 6(2)).\n\n- Contracts and exclusion clauses: the occupier may, by agreement, extend, restrict, modify or exclude obligations under s 5(1) \"except in so far as he is entitled to and does\" so (s 5(1)). However, the Act prohibits an occupier from restricting or excluding the duty under the Act, or liability for breach of it, by relying on contract provisions if the person to whom the duty is owed is not a party to that contract (s 7(1)). Section 7 applies to contracts made before and after the Act began (s 7(2)).\n\n- Landlords: where a tenancy makes the landlord responsible for maintenance or repair, the landlord must show the same care to persons on the premises regarding dangers arising from failures in maintenance/repair as an occupier would show under the Act (s 9(1)); the rule also applies to sub‑tenancies when the landlord bears those maintenance responsibilities (s 9(2)). The section does not relieve landlords of other duties they have apart from this section and applies to tenancies created before or after commencement (s 9(3)–(4)).\n\n- Preservation of higher standards and other relationships: the Act does not lower any higher standard that other enactments or rules of law impose on particular classes of persons (for example, bailees or common carriers), and it does not affect rights, duties and liabilities arising from employer–employee relationships (s 8(1)–(2)).\n\n- Apportionment and contributory negligence: claims under this Act are subject to the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors’ Contribution) Act 1947, which affects apportionment where more than one party contributed to the loss (s 10).\n\nWho pays, who decides, and the likely behavioural effects (mechanisms)\n\n- Who pays: where an occupier or landlord is found liable under the Act, that occupier or landlord will be the person required to answer in damages or other relief under the civil law regime (s 5, s 9). The Act creates both a duty and statutory rules for defences that affect liability (s 6, s 7).\n\n- Who decides compliance: the Act sets a reasonableness standard judged against statutory factors (s 5(4)); that standard is applied by courts and tribunals in civil proceedings. The Act does not create administrative standards or an inspectorate; it relies on judicial fact‑finding.\n\n- Incentives and behavioural effects implied by the text:\n  - Occupiers are incentivised to maintain premises and to select and supervise contractors properly to preserve the independent‑contractor defence (s 6(1)).\n  - Landlords who are responsible for maintenance and repair are incentivised to carry out those obligations, because failures in those obligations attract the same care standard as occupiers (s 9(1)).\n  - Occupiers may seek to limit exposure by contracting directly with persons entering the premises (s 5(1)), but cannot rely on third‑party contract clauses to extinguish duties owed to non‑contracting entrants (s 7(1)).\n\nCompliance burden, discretion and implementation risks\n\n- Compliance burden: occupiers and landlords must take steps to eliminate or guard against identified dangers where reasonable; they also carry the administrative burden of documenting contractor selection/supervision and maintenance decisions if they wish to rely on the defences in s 6 and s 9 (s 6(1), s 9(1)).\n\n- Discretion: the statute deliberately uses a judicial reasonableness standard with statutory factors (s 5(4)). That choice transfers interpretive discretion to courts and increases the likelihood that liability outcomes will turn on case‑specific evidence and judicial assessment.\n\n- Implementation risk: because the core test is \"reasonable in all the circumstances\" and the statutory list in s 5(4) is multi‑factorial, parties can expect litigation where facts are close or where there are competing inferences about knowledge, foreseeability, or the proportionality of remedial measures.\n\nTrade‑offs and opportunity costs signalled by the Act (text‑tested)\n\n- The Act substitutes a statutory reasonableness framework for parts of the common law on occupier liability (s 4(1)). That substitution clarifies certain points (for example, expressly including property brought onto premises) but leaves the work of applying a flexible standard to courts (s 5(4)).\n\n- The Act preserves higher statutory or common‑law duties (s 8), so some occupiers who are subject to special rules must still comply with those stricter requirements even if the general occupier standard would be lower in their case.\n\nSummary in one paragraph: Sections 5–7 replace the common‑law test for the care occupiers owe to entrants and their property with a statutory \"reasonable care in all the circumstances\" test, backed by a non‑exhaustive list of factors to guide judicial assessment (s 4(1), s 5(1), s 5(4)). The Act limits liability in specified cases (willing assumption of risk, criminal entrants), preserves an independent‑contractor defence subject to conditions (s 6), prevents reliance on third‑party contracts to exclude duties to non‑parties (s 7), imposes a maintenance/repair‑linked duty on landlords (s 9), and preserves higher duties and other statutory liabilities (s 8, s 6(2)). The Crown is bound (s 3) and contributory negligence rules apply (s 10)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/occupiers-liability-act-1985","history":"/api/acts/occupiers-liability-act-1985/history","analysis":"/api/acts/occupiers-liability-act-1985/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/occupiers-liability-act-1985/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/occupiers-liability-act-1985/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/occupiers-liability-act-1985/documents"}}