Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd

The appeal in Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd involved the appellant, who leased serviced apartments from the respondent, suffering a needle stick injury during the cleaning of the premises. The appellant sought damages for breach of contract, negligence, and for breach of a term implied by the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The primary judge held that the respondent was not negligent, finding that the risk of harm was not foreseeable, or that a reasonable person would not have taken additional precautions, and that the probability of harm was low. The appeal was centred on the primary judge’s findings concerning the foreseeability of the risk and the adequacy of the respondent’s precautions.

The key legal issue in the appeal was whether the primary judge erred in finding that the risk of harm to the appellant was not foreseeable, or that a reasonable person in the respondent’s position would not have taken any more precautions, given the filthy state of the premises. The Court had to consider the primary judge’s acceptance of the appellant’s evidence concerning the state of the apartment, which was corroborated by her husband’s testimony and DVD evidence, and the lack of recollection among the cleaners. The appeal questioned whether the primary judge’s findings were consistent with the evidence and whether there was a palpable misuse of the advantage of a trial judge.

The Court held that the appeal should be allowed as the primary judge’s findings were inconsistent with the evidence. The appellant's evidence about the build-up of detritus on the stairs was not sufficiently considered, leading to an incorrect conclusion about the foreseeability of the risk and the adequacy of the respondent’s precautions. The Court found that the primary judge’s acceptance of the appellant’s evidence about the filthy state of the apartment was irreconcilable with the finding that the standard cleaning procedure was likely followed. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant damages along with interest. The parties were directed to file and exchange written submissions on costs.