Hunt v Knight Frank (NSW) Pty Ltd & 2 Ors [2005] NSWCA 139

Hunt v Knight Frank (NSW) Pty Ltd & 2 Ors [2005] NSWCA 139

It was more probable than not, on the balance of circumstantial evidence and inferences, that Ebsworths' personnel were responsible for repositioning the crate in front of Lift No 7, breaching their duty of care to the appellant and creating a trap for persons exiting the lift. The risk was foreseeable and not ameliorated by the appellant's duty to look out for hazards. The appellant was not guilty of contributory negligence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment below set aside. Judgment for the appellant against the second respondent on liability. Cross-appeals dismissed. Costs allocated as per orders. Matter remitted to District Court for hearing on damages.
Legal Topics
["occupier's Liability" 'breach of Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'inferential Reasoning' 'res Ipsa Loquitur' 'cost Orders']
['tort' 'negligence'] ["occupier's Liability" 'breach of Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'inferential Reasoning' 'res Ipsa Loquitur' 'cost Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Ebsworths was responsible for placing the crate where the appellant tripped' 'Whether leaving the crate in front of the lift breached the duty of care owed to the appellant' 'Whether the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence' 'Whether a Bullock or Sanderson costs order was appropriate']

Ratio Decidendi

It was more probable than not, on the balance of circumstantial evidence and inferences, that Ebsworths' personnel were responsible for repositioning the crate in front of Lift No 7, breaching their duty of care to the appellant and creating a trap for persons exiting the lift. The risk was foreseeable and not ameliorated by the appellant's duty to look out for hazards. The appellant was not guilty of contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment below set aside. Judgment for the appellant against the second respondent on liability. Cross-appeals dismissed. Costs allocated as per orders. Matter remitted to District Court for hearing on damages.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed' 'Judgment below set aside' 'Judgment for the appellant against the second respondents on liability' 'Cross-appeals dismissed' "Save as to the costs of preparation of the Red Appeal Book, second respondents to pay the appellant's costs of his appeal against the second respondent, the second...