The relationship between a unit owner and a body corporate (or building manager) is not a 'special relationship' sufficient to ground a duty of care to protect against criminal acts of third parties under the Modbury doctrine. The deliberate removal of a security system (misfeasance) does not necessarily generate a duty of care where the other indicia of duty — reliance, assumption of responsibility, special vulnerability, and control — are absent. The creation of new categories of 'special relationship' for liability for third-party criminal acts is a matter for the High Court, not intermediate appellate courts.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.