Wynn Tresidder Management v Barkho

The appeal concerned a negligence claim brought by the respondent against the appellant, Wynn Tresidder Management, as the occupier of a shopping centre, and a subcontractor, Moonlight. The respondent slipped and fell on a wet floor in the shopping centre, sustaining injuries. The primary judge found that the subcontractor, Moonlight, had taken reasonable steps to warn of the wet floor and had not breached its duty of care. However, the primary judge found the appellant, Wynn Tresidder Management, liable in negligence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appellant, as the occupier, had discharged its duty of care to the respondent, a lawful entrant, by the steps taken by its subcontractor to warn of the wet floor and mop the area. The court was also required to consider whether the appellant's conduct materially contributed to the respondent's injury, and whether the respondent's own inadvertence in not noticing the warnings constituted contributory negligence. Furthermore, the court had to determine if clauses 34 and 36 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 conferred private causes of action on members of the public and whether there was an implied repeal of these provisions due to contrariety with the Civil Liability Act 2002.

The court reasoned that the appellant, as the occupier with care, control, and management of the premises, owed an overriding duty to ensure the premises were reasonably safe. It was held that the appellant breached this duty by failing to implement a proper system to address the persisting water leak, which posed a foreseeable risk of injury. The court found that the appellant's failure to intervene by closing the area, arranging an alternative route, or restricting access with barricades or a guard was a unique failure on its part. The court also considered the medical evidence regarding the respondent's injuries and the primary judge's assessment of non-economic loss, finding it to be within a proper discretionary range.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.