Limits on Principal Contractor Duties in Sawyer v Steeplechase [2024]
The Supreme Court of Queensland recently considered whether a principal contractor has a duty to take reasonable care to supervise, monitor, and ensure a safe system of work for specialised work completed by independent contractors.
Background
The plaintiff, Luke Sawyer, commenced proceedings seeking damages in respect of injuries allegedly sustained whilst working as a concreter for the fourth defendant, Cretek Concreting (‘Cretek’). These alleged injuries arose from two incidents.
On 22 August 2016, the plaintiff was assigned to complete foundation preparations for a concrete slab at a residential property job site. The first defendant’s construction business, SW Constructions (‘SWC’) was the principal contractor for the project. At that time, Cretek was owned and operate by the second defendant. The plaintiff claimed that he sustained a lower back injury whilst bending and reaching to guide a mesh sheet in place for the slab foundation. He further alleged that he subsequently suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing psychological condition secondary to this lower back injury.
Thereafter, the plaintiff continued to carry out employment as a concreter for Cretek. On 3 July 2017, the plaintiff alleged that he suffered an aggravation of both his initial back injury and his psychological condition, when bending over to get a drink. By this time, Cretek was operated by a new entity, the third defendant.
Liability of SWC
The plaintiff claimed that SWC, as the principal contractor in occupation and control of the job site at the time of the initial incident, owed him a duty of care. The scope of this duty was contented to include SWC taking reasonable care to: –
- Monitor and maintain workplace health and safety at the site;
- Direct the plaintiff to not engage in unsafe work;
- Warn the plaintiff of any unnecessary risk of injury; and
- Avoid reasonably foreseeable but unnecessary risks of injury.
The plaintiff accepted that the principal-independent contractor relationship between SWC and Cretek generally does not, on its own, impose upon SWC a duty of care to him. However, he submitted that a consideration of the totality of the relationship between SWC and Cretek justified the imposition of such a duty. In this regard, the plaintiff referred to, amongst other things, SWC’s control over the work performed, that SWC had ordered the mesh sheet, and that the work performed was not specialised work with reference to other work that SWC had carried out at the site.
SWC denied that any such duty existed, and if it did, denied any breach.
Decision
Justice Crowley found that SWC was not liable for any injury, loss, or damage claimed by the plaintiff.
As noted by Justice Crowley, the relevant principles for consideration in determining whether a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff by SWC were considered by the High Court in Leighton Contractors v Fox. Reference was also made to the “seventeen salient features” identified by President Allsop in Caltex Refineries (QLD) Pty Ltd v Stavar. Justice Crowley opined that the relevant authorities clearly established that certain circumstances justified the imposition of an obligation upon a principal contractor to use reasonable care to ensure a safe system of work for independent contractors.
Justice Crowley opined that the totality of the circumstances and nature of the relationship between SWC and Cretek were not such that a duty of care as pleaded by the plaintiff should be imputed. His Honour asserted that SWC had engaged Cretek to perform a particular task, and that Cretek was competent to devise and control its own system of work. SWC did not retain control of how the activity was to be done. Justice Crowley did not accept the plaintiff’s submission that the work being undertaken by Cretek was not specialised, noting that whilst the laying of mesh was non-speciality work, the work more generally was nevertheless in respect of a specialty product.
Justice Crowley further concluded that SWC was not required to undertake a risk assessment for the task the plaintiff was performing at the time of the initial injury. Responsibility for this, in Justice Crowley’s view, fell to Cretek, as it knew the nature of the particular tasks to be carried out, as well as the risks associated with same.
If you have any queries regarding the article, please contact via Free Claim Checker or email us.
