Australia: Why Westfield escaped liability and obtained an indemnity costs order from its independent contractor

Curwoods Case Note
Last Updated: 2 December 2011
Article by Emma Sheehan

Judgment date: 25 November 2011

Elphick v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Company Pty Limited [2011] NSWCA 356

New South Wales Court of Appeal1

In Brief

  • Careful consideration of the scope and content of the duty of care owed by an occupier to employees of an independent contractor is required when determining whether there has been a breach of duty.
  • The terms of contractual relationships between parties are significant in determining the responsibilities and obligations of the respective parties.
  • The general rule is that an insured and an insurer cannot have separate representation even if there are "insured" and "uninsured" elements to the claim unless the Court grants leave for each person/entity to have separate representation.


The plaintiff, Mr Ross Lovell Elphick (Elphick), was employed by All Cleaning & Security Pty Limited (ACS) at the Westfield Shopping Centre at Tuggerah on the Central Coast. The shopping centre was owned and operated by Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co Pty Limited (Westfield) which contracted with ACS to provide cleaning services at the Centre.

Westfield and ACS entered into a written agreement on 1 June 2006 in which ACS was engaged as a contractor to provide cleaning services at the centre. The agreement required, amongst other things, that ACS would:

  • furnish all labour, materials, supplies, equipment, services, machinery, tools and other facilities required for the prompt and efficient supply of the service;
  • maintain all equipment in good, safe and working condition;
  • ensure its employees did not undertake work activities detrimental to their health, safety or welfare;
  • implement environmental, health and safety procedures for the instruction and training of its employees and provide supervision to ensure workplace safety;
  • indemnify Westfield "from and against all claims, demands, writs, summons, actions, suits, proceedings, judgments, orders, decrees, costs, losses and expenses of any relation to any...personal injury...arising out of any act, omission or negligence of [ACS], or any of its employees,...including any breach of this agreement..." (clause 9); and
  • indemnify Westfield against "all costs, losses, damages or a result of a civil claim...arising out of or in connection with a breach by ACS of any of its obligations under (this) clause 14".

In 2008 the agreement was assigned to another company in the ACS group of companies, Atlantic Cleaning & Security Pty Limited (Atlantic). When the agreement was assigned Westfield purported to seek indemnities in relation to various matters from ACS and Atlantic. The correspondence requiring the indemnities was not forwarded to Atlantic.

Elphick commenced work as a cleaner with ACS in September 2004. His duties included cleaning the shopping centre and collecting scrap cardboard from shopkeepers to place in metal storage cages. The cage was then transported to a loading dock where the cardboard was transferred to a compactor for baling. The cage had three wheels and a door on one side to enable boxes to be retrieved from it. The cage was transported using a golf cart operated by an ACS employee. Once the cage was taken to the loading dock it was affixed to a bollard using baling twine. This was the only method employed to stabilise the cage. To unload the cage, ACS employees would often need to place one of their feet inside the cage.

On 21 July 2006 Elphick was unloading the cage when he placed his right foot inside the cage. Whilst he had his foot inside the cage it rolled slightly. As the cage rolled Elphick twisted his hip causing injury to his back. Elphick reported the incident to his supervisors. Elphick continued working on limited duties for a short period of time. Eventually the pain in Elphick's back deteriorated to such an extent that he was unable to continue working. At the time of the trial Elphick had not worked since 30 November 2006.

Westfield did not become aware of Elphick's injury until Westfield's Risk Management coordinator saw Elphick walking awkwardly. She enquired what had happened to him and he provided her with an explanation. Thereafter, Westfield arranged for a metal hook to be used by the cleaners to reach inside the cage. This eliminated the hazard posed to workers by stepping into the cage. Further steps were taken by Westfield to improve safety, including: installing a warning sign on the cage door advising that workers were not allowed to stand inside the cage; placing carpet on the cage floor; and, attaching a metal chain to the cage, replacing the baling twine which had formerly been used to secure the cage to the bollard. At a later time, two drop bolts were fitted to the front corners of the cage. Holes were drilled into the concrete floor to allow the bolts to be dropped in to them, thereby increasing the stability of the cage.

Two former employees of ACS gave evidence which corroborated Elphick's version of the system of work which was adopted for unloading the cardboard boxes from the cage. One of those employees, Mr Casinoro Chrul, gave evidence that he had told maintenance employees of Westfield on two occasions that the cage was not safe because it would tilt when you stepped inside the cage. It was clear at the hearing that the cause of Elphick's injury was not attributable to the tilting of the cage.

District Court Decision

Elphick brought proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales alleging Westfield and ACS were negligent.

The trial judge, Hungerford ADCJ, found that Elphick was an honest and credible witness. He accepted that Elphick had attempted to return to work however as a result of his physical injuries and previous training he had been unable to find gainful employment. The trial judge found that Elphick's capacity to earn on the open labour market was less than one third of his pre-injury capacity.

In addressing the scope and content of the duty of care owed by Westfield, the trial judge relied on the following passage of the judgment of Brennan J in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd2 at 47-48:

"The duty to use reasonable care in organising an activity does not import a duty to avoid any risk of injury; it imports a duty to use reasonable care to avoid unnecessary risks of injury and to minimise other risks of injury...once the activity has been organised and its operation is in the hands of independent contractors, liability for negligence by them within the area of their responsibility is not borne vicariously by the entrepreneur."

The trial judge referred to the judgment of Basten JA in Sydney Water Corporation v Abramovic3 in which he held that a principal may owe a duty to a worker who is an employee of an independent contractor if one of the following criteria apply:

  1. the principal directs the manner of the performance of the work;
  2. the work requires the co-ordination of the activities of different contractors;
  3. the principal has or ought to have knowledge of the risk and the employer does not and cannot reasonably be expected to have such knowledge;
  4. the principal has the means to alleviate the risk and the employer cannot reasonably be expected to do so;
  5. although the employer has or should have the relevant knowledge and can be expected reasonably to take steps to alleviate the risk, it does not, to the knowledge of the principal, do so.

The trial judge found that ACS was responsible for the system of work that was adopted at the shopping centre. He also found that the cage that was provided by Westfield was not unsuitable or unsafe, rather the system for unloading the cage was unsafe. This process did not involve Westfield. Hungerford ADCJ did not find that any of the criteria formulated by Basten JA in Abramovic were engaged. Accordingly, he found that Westfield owed no relevant duty of care to Elphick.

The trial judge found that ACS adopted an unsafe system of work and that there was a foreseeable risk of injury in the system of work which was implemented at the shopping centre.

Westfield sought indemnity from ACS and Atlantic in respect of any damages and costs it was ordered to pay Elphick. Westfield also sought indemnity for the costs it had incurred in defending Elphick's claim and pursuing the Cross-Claim. Hungerford ADCJ held that the indemnity provisions contained in the agreement were sufficiently broad to require ACS to indemnify Westfield for the costs it had incurred in the action arising from ACS's negligence. The trial judge found that Westfield's Cross-Claim against Atlantic failed because the indemnity obligation had not been properly assigned to Atlantic.

ACS sought indemnity from its workers compensation insurer, Employers Mutual (NSW) Limited (EML). EML admitted it was liable to indemnify ACS for any damages payable to Elphick pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA), plus costs.

The trial judge assessed damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2002 (CLA) in the sum of $822,569. The damages allowed pursuant to s 151G of the WCA totalled $525,658. Accordingly, Elphick was awarded $525,658 plus costs.

Court of Appeal

Elphick appealed the findings of the trial judge in respect of whether Westfield had a liability to him. Westfield filed a Cross-Appeal in relation to its Cross-Claim against ACS. Westfield argued that if it were found liable to Elphick then it was entitled to indemnity from ACS. Westfield also argued it was entitled to indemnity from ACS for its costs of defending the appeal.

ACS also filed a Cross-Appeal appealing the trial judge's findings in relation to the construction of the indemnity clauses contained in the agreement and in relation to the costs orders made by the trial judge.

On appeal, Elphick argued that both ACS and Westfield were responsible for the system of work implemented at the shopping centre. Elphick also argued that as Westfield owned the cage it was responsible for the manner in which it was used. It was also submitted that the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 (OHS Act) provided content to the scope of Westfield's duty of care as an occupier. Finally, Elphick had argued that the duty of Westfield was akin to the duty of an employer to his employee.

Elphick argued that the steps taken by Westfield in respect of the cage and the system of work following Elphick's accident were determinative of its negligence. Counsel for Westfield relied on s 5C(c) of the CLA which provides that subsequent actions of a defendant do not constitute an admission of liability.

Westfield argued that ACS was responsible for devising, implementing and supervising the system of work of placing the cardboard into the compactor. Secondly, Westfield argued that there was no requirement that the cage supplied by it must be used by ACS. Westfield also submitted that the agreement required ACS to provide its own equipment and to determine how the cage should be incorporated into the system of work. Finally, Westfield argued that the cage itself was not inherently unsuitable.

In the Court of Appeal, Whealy JA delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court.

Whealy JA concurred with the findings of the trial judge that the agreement between Westfield and ACA demonstrated that ACS was responsible for, amongst other things, maintaining the safety of its system of work and the safety of its employees. ACS was also required to provide all relevant materials and equipment, and maintain equipment in good and safe working conditions. The duty of care owed by Westfield was only to take reasonable care for Elphick's safety as an entrant upon the premises. In the circumstances there was nothing which gave rise to a breach of Westfield's duty of care to Elphick. Whealy JA was satisfied that the trial judge had not erred in relation to his findings concerning the liability of Westfield.

Whealy JA found, contrary to Elphick's submissions relating to an alleged breach of the OHS Act, that the statutory or regulatory duties (which apply regardless of fault) are not simply transposed into the duty to exercise reasonable care: Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox4.

Westfield submitted that pursuant to clauses 9 and 14 of the agreement it was entitled to an order that it be indemnified for the costs it incurred in defending the claim commenced by Elphick and that such an order should extend to the costs incurred in defending the appeal.

Ultimately, Whealy JA found that clause 14 of the agreement required ACS to indemnify Westfield for its costs (or losses). The effect of the agreement, together with a limited concession made by ACS's Counsel in the District Court and the execution of Short Minutes of Order agreeing to such an outcome in the District Court were further factors which were considered by Whealy JA in finding that Westfield was entitled to an order for costs in its favour.

Whealy JA found there had been no error on the part of the trial judge. Accordingly, Westfield was found to have no liability to Elphick. Elphick was ordered to pay Westfield's costs of the appeal. ACS was ordered to pay Westfield's costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis less any amounts Elphick had to pay Westfield. ACS was also ordered to pay Westfield's costs of the respective cross-appeals.

In obiter, Young JA noted, quite importantly, that ACS was represented by different solicitors in the Appeal and Cross-Appeal (there were also two sets of representation in the District Court). One set of representatives was retained to appear for ACS on behalf of the workers compensation insurer, EML, and one set were retained to act in relation to the contractual liabilities of ACS. Young JA noted that there are no specific rules permitting or forbidding separate representation however a Court must grant leave for separate representation to occur. The general rule is that an insured and insurer cannot have separate representation5. Separate representation should only occur in unusual circumstances and he noted that the notion that there is a right to have separate representation is a "myth [that] should be exploded".


The case demonstrates that merely being an occupier is not sufficient to give rise to a duty of care. The scope and content of the duty must be considered in determining liability.

A principal may owe a duty of care to an employee of an independent contractor. However certain criteria must be met before a Court will find that there is a relevant duty of care. The principles applied by the High Court in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd which were confirmed in Leighton Contractors v Fox relating to the scope and content of the duty of care owed by a principal to an independent contractor or employee of an independent contractor, remain good law.

The case also demonstrates that the obligations and duties contained in contractual agreements are relevant to determining the scope and content of a party's duty of care.

While obligations under the OHS Act have relevance to determining the existence and scope of a duty they do not impose a more stringent or onerous burden. Whatever their scope, all duties of care are to be discharged by the exercise of reasonable care as explained by Gummow J in Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Dederer6.

The Court of Appeal, in obiter, has reminded those who work in the insurance industry that separate representation for an insurer and insured or in relation to insured and uninsured losses should only be granted by Courts in exceptional circumstances.

Emma Sheehan
Curwoods Lawyers


1 Young JA, Whealy JA and Sackville AJA

2 [1986] HCA 1

3 [2007] NSWCA 248 at paragraph 98

4 [2009] HCA 35

5 Carter v Marine Helicopters Ltd (1995) 9 ANZ Ins Case 61-299 at 76-347 (New Zealand High Court) applied by Einstein J in Sydney Airport Corporation Pty Limited v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1106.

6 [2007] HCA 42

Ranked No 1 - Australia's fastest growing law firm' (Legal Partnership Survey, The Australian July 2010)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.