Bunnings Group Ltd v Borg

Bunnings Group Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a District Court verdict that found it liable for negligence. The dispute concerned injuries sustained by Mr. Borg, a customer, who was struck by falling timber while shopping at a Bunnings warehouse. The trial judge had found in favour of Mr. Borg, but Bunnings contended that the judge failed to properly address significant inconsistencies in the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the accident.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge had adequately grappled with the conflicting testimonial and documentary evidence, and whether clear findings of breach of duty and causation had been made. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the trial judge had properly applied the provisions of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), specifically sections 5B, 5C, 5D, and 5E, in reaching the verdict.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had failed to adequately address the inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly in relation to the reliance placed on a photograph of a reconstruction of the incident. This failure meant that the essential elements of breach of duty and causation were not clearly established in accordance with the relevant legal principles. Consequently, the court concluded that the verdict could not stand.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the District Court were set aside. A retrial was ordered, with Bunnings Group Ltd to pay Mr. Borg's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, and Mr. Borg to receive a certificate pursuant to the *Suitor's Fund Act 1951* (NSW).