Australia: Accident on public road leading to building site – whether an occupier/builder owes a duty of care to the contract delivery driver

Curwoods Case Note
Last Updated: 1 May 2012
Article by Iain Miller

Judgment date: 20 April 2012

Miljus v Watpow Constructions Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 96

NSW Court of Appeal1

In Brief

  • This case reinforces the principles in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd2(Brodribb), that an occupier "who organizes an activity involving a risk of injury to those engaged in it is under a duty to use reasonable care in organizing the activity to avoid or minimize that risk"3, and the occupier is not liable for damage caused by a negligent failure of an independent contractor to adopt or follow a safe system of work within their area of responsibility.
  • Regulation 73(2) of the Construction Safety Regulations (1950) (NSW) (the Regulations) which obliges a builder/occupier to "provide and maintain safe means of access to every place at which any person has to work at any time", does not have any operation in relation to a delivery vehicle's passage along a public road as it makes its way to the construction site.
  • This case followed the decision in Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox4, (Leighton) that the statutory obligations contained in the Construction Safety Act 1912 (NSW) (the Act) and the Regulations are not simply transposed into the duty to exercise reasonable care.
  • Liability does not attach in any civil or criminal proceedings for breach of a Code of Practice pursuant to s 46(2) of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 (NSW).


Mr Miljus (plaintiff) was employed by a company called Edensor Transport Pty Ltd (Edensor), of which he was also a director and shareholder. Edensor was in the business of concrete delivery and had its own vehicle suitable for that purpose.

The defendant, Watpow Constructions Pty Ltd (Watpow), was a building company and was engaged by the owner of a residential property at Rignold Street, Seaforth, to carry out a major building redevelopment (building site).

Watpow contracted with CSR Ltd (CSR), a prominent building products supplier, for concrete to be supplied to the building site. CSR subcontracted Edensor, one of its contract drivers, to transport the concrete from its depot in Brookvale to the site.

Watpow also contracted with Pump Force Concrete Pumping (Pump Force) who was experienced in relation to concrete pours on building sites and provided the "Hopper" into which the concrete was poured and subsequently pumped towards the building site. Pump Force's "Hopper" was located on Rignold Street itself, adjacent to the building site.

Rignold Street had a continuous downhill slope with a fairly steep embankment on the right hand side of the road. The width of the road was not much greater than the plaintiff's truck.

On 20 March 2001, the plaintiff was directed by CSR to deliver 5 cubic metres of concrete to the building site. This was CSR's second delivery to the building site that morning, though the plaintiff had never been to the site before. As he had difficultly locating Rignold Street the plaintiff was directed by CSR's Brookvale depot to speak with the driver who made the earlier delivery that morning. The CSR driver advised the plaintiff to stick to the upper side of the street.

Before entering Rignold Street the plaintiff climbed out of his truck, walked down the street and observed its condition and topography. The plaintiff formed the view that, although there were difficulties, he was capable of successfully reversing down the road. The plaintiff did not speak to anybody at the site, nor did he speak to any representatives of Watpow or Pump Force.

The plaintiff's father, who up until this time had been a passenger, exited the truck and assisted the plaintiff in the navigation process. However, in the course of reversing, the plaintiff lost control of the vehicle which toppled onto its left side and fell into the adjacent gully. The accident occurred on a public road at some distance removed from the building site. As a result of the accident the plaintiff suffered physical and psychiatric injuries.

Supreme Court

Proceedings were initially commenced against CSR and Watpow in the District Court of NSW on 2 March 2004. Following a tortuous history, the matter was ultimately transferred to the Supreme Court for hearing on 24 May 2010, before his Honour Judge Davies.

Following 6 days of hearing, CSR and Watpow agreed to have their cross-claims against Edensor dismissed. In addition, following agreement between the remaining parties, judgment in relation to the plaintiff's claim was entered in favour of CSR. Accordingly, the proceedings were ultimately against Watpow alone.

Davies J accepted the evidence given by Mr David Watson, director of the defendant, that 2 CSR representatives, including Mr Mark Watson, traversed the site with him prior to deliveries taking place and examined the suggested spot adjacent to the premises where Pump Force had suggested that the concrete pump should be placed to accept delivery from the concrete trucks. David Watson specifically asked Mark Watson whether he saw any problems with getting the trucks to the site from Boronia Lane along Rignold Street and was assured by one of the CSR representatives that "they could get the concrete truck down there, no problem"5.

The plaintiff made 16 allegations of negligence against Watpow which generally revolved around a claim that Watpow owed a duty to provide and maintain the roadway as a safe means of access. The critical reason advanced by the plaintiff was that the concrete pump (or a second pump, as was done after the accident) ought to have been located at a point which would have obviated the need for trucks to be driven down the roadway.

In support of this argument the plaintiff drew the Court's attention to the Code of Practice for Pumping Concrete (Code of Practice) as well as provisions contained in the Act and the Regulations.

Following consideration of the evidence and each party's submissions, Davies J held that there was no duty of care owed by Watpow to the plaintiff given that:

  1. in accordance with the reasoning in Leighton, a failure on the part of a builder or contractor to have regard to specific clauses of the Code of Practice might be some evidence of a breach of a common law duty, but it would not provide a basis for imposing a new duty on the builder beyond any duty that the law already imposed;
  2. given the facts and circumstances of the matter, it was not possible to characterise either the plaintiff or Edensor as an independent contractor of Watpow, given that at no time did Watpow engage the services of Edensor or the plaintiff;
  3. there was no authority which supported a finding that a builder occupying a building site owed any duty, with respect to the safety and maintenance of a public road, to an independent contractor of a person with whom the builder had a contractual relationship for the delivery of goods. Certainly the builder had no obligation to repair the road or make it or its environs safe;
  4. there was no evidence of any reliance by the plaintiff on Watpow. The plaintiff's own evidence had been that he did not speak to anyone from the building site when he made his inspection of the road before attempting to reverse his truck to the site. He had formed his own conclusions and determined that although there were difficulties he was capable of driving down the road.

Accordingly, in the absence of any reliance by the plaintiff on anything said or done by Watpow in relation to the roadway, Davies J held there was no duty of care imposed on Watpow.

Interestingly, his Honour concluded that if there were a duty imposed on Watpow, a reasonable person in Watpow's position would have taken certain precautions including the placing of a second pump further up the street. In these circumstances, his Honour considered Watpow would have breached its duty, had one existed, by failing to ensure that trucks did not need to proceed beyond the corner of the road to deliver concrete.

Court of Appeal

The plaintiff appealed Davies J's decision on a number of grounds, the most relevant being:

  1. Watpow had retained a special controlling role as a head contactor with a supervisory obligation to avoid unreasonable risk of injury to truck drivers such as the plaintiff;
  2. the failure to use a second pump further up the roadway constituted a breach of duty to exercise reasonable care to provide a safe manner of delivery of concrete to the site; and
  3. the obligations imposed by s 73(2) of the Regulations and the Code of Practice gave content to the existence and scope of a duty of care owed by Watpow.

Duty of Care

Whealy JA delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court.

His Honour noted that this matter presented an unusual feature, namely, that the claim revolved around an employee of the delivery contractor (the plaintiff) who was not engaged by Watpow, and who was injured in an accident which occurred at a position relatively well removed from a building site. In considering whether a duty of care existed between Watpow and the plaintiff, Whealy JA noted:

  1. the general duty of care owed by a builder or contractor who has possession of the building site is that of an occupier. It owes a duty to persons coming onto the site to use reasonable care to avoid physical injury to them where the risk of that injury is foreseeable (in accordance with the decisions of Leighton and Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna6);
  2. this duty, in circumstances where the occupier engages an independent contractor to carry out aspects of its enterprise, does not give rise to a duty of care towards an employee of the independent contractor akin to the duty of an employer to his employee: Leighton;
  3. in circumstances outlined by Mason J in Brodribb, the duty to take reasonable care may extend to responsibilities involved in the system of work utilised by the independent contractor;
  4. however, where the builder/occupier has engaged the services of an independent contractor whose task it is to control its own employee's systems of work and without supervision by the occupier, there may, depending on the overall circumstances be no liability imposed on the builder for a failure by the independent contractor to control its own system of work, as per Mason J in Brodribb:

"...once the activity has been organized 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..."7

In examining whether the plaintiff was responsible for his own system of work, Whealey JA noted:

  1. there was no contract between Watpow and Edensor/the plaintiff;
  2. the contract between CSR and Watpow highlighted that Watpow (as the builder/occupier) would assume responsibility if the delivery vehicle left the road and entered the building site. By contrast, CSR (and its independent contractor drivers) had responsibility up to the point when the truck left the road and moved onto the building site;
  3. Watpow discharged its obligation to engage a competent contractor to carry out the concrete pumping aspect of its building contract by engaging Pump Force. Similarly Watpow selected a competent and experienced concrete supplier, and relied on it and its independent delivery contractors to bring the concrete to Pump Force; and
  4. Watpow had neither the expertise in the driving of concrete trucks, nor any specialised knowledge in the operation of concrete pumps or their placement. Watpow was entitled to look to CSR to make determinations as to whether its delivery vehicles would be able to effectively and safely deliver concrete to the pump in its location adjacent to the building site.

His Honour concluded that, based on the abovementioned principles in Brodribb, the duty of care sought by the plaintiff simply did not arise. Accordingly, if no duty arose in relation to the co-ordination of the activities on the project site, it must be the case that no such duty arose or existed in relation to an activity away from the site.

The Regulations

The plaintiff looked to s 73(2) of the Regulations to determine the potential scope and nature of a duty of care owed by Watpow. Section 73(2) of the Regulations obliges a builder/occupier to "provide and maintain safe means of access to every place at which any person has to work at any time".

Whealy JA noted that in this matter, the obligation was intended to fall upon the head contractor/occupier to take all necessary measures to minimise accident risk and to prevent injury to a person delivering goods to the site. In those circumstances, his Honour concluded it would have application only at the time when the process of passing the concrete through the pump system was engaged. His Honour did not consider the Regulations have any operation in relation to the delivery vehicle's passage along a public road as it makes its way to the construction site.

Whealy JA, following the decision in Leighton, confirmed that the statutory obligations found in s 46(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW) (OH&S Act) are not simply transposed into the duty to exercise reasonable care and "... carried with it, in the case of breach, no civil or criminal liability"8.

Breach of Duty

Whealy JA disagreed with the primary judge's finding that if the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care that there was a breach of duty. His Honour found the evidence overwhelmingly established that the defendant had discharged that duty by engaging competent contractors who were responsible for the design and implementation of a system of work for the delivery of concrete to the site. Furthermore his Honour found, having regard to the number of prior truck movements over many months, the probability of harm occurring to anyone delivering goods to the site, including concrete trucks were so low that a reasonable person would not have taken any precautions beyond relying on the advice of specialist contractors in relation to such a possibility.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.


The case reinforces the principles in Brodribb that a head contractor has a general obligation to engage competent contractors to carry out work at a construction site but once that obligation has been fulfilled and a safe system of work prescribed, generally no further duty exists.

The duty to prescribe a safe system of work does not extend to any operation in relation to a delivery vehicle's passage along a public road as it makes its way to a construction site.

The case also reinforces the principles in Leighton that while obligations under statutory or other enactments have relevance to determining the existence and scope of duty they do not impose a more stringent or onerous burden. The duty is discharged by the exercise of reasonable care.

The Act and Regulations have since been replaced by the OH&S Act and the Occupational Health & Safety Regulation (2001) (OH&S Regulation). The above decision may provide some guidance when interpreting similar provisions contained in the OH&S Act and the OH&S Regulation, in particular regs 34 and 46, which provide that a controller of premises is obliged to identify and eliminate risks to "the health or safety of any person accessing, using or egressing from the premises".


1 Bathurst CJ, McColl JA and Whealy JA
2 [1986] 160 CLR 16
3 Brennan J, at 534
4 [2009] HCA 35
5 Whealy JA, at 26
6 [1987] HCA 7
7 [1986] 160 CLR 16, at 47-48
8 Whealy JA, at 127

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.