Australia: Occupiers Liability - Liability Of Principal For Employee Of Independent Contractor

Last Updated: 17 July 2007

Blackwood & Son Steel & Metals Pty Limited -v- Nichols [2007] NSWCA 157

4 July 2007
Mason P Tobias JA; Handley AJA;

In Brief

  • The Court of Appeal held that the duty of care owed by an occupier to an experienced independent contractor does not require the occupier to provide the contractor with a safe system of work once the activity has been organised and its operation is in the hands of the independent contractor.
  • The Court of Appeal also held that the duty to provide safe access to a place of work under the Occupational Health & Safety Regulation 2001 was confined to the provision and maintenance of safe access to a worker's place of work – ie the regulation is not directed to circumstances where a worker is already at his or her place of work.


  • The plaintiff was an experienced driver of prime movers and trailers and had been employed in that capacity by D & R Boyle Enterprise Pty Limited ("the cross defendant") for some six years.
  • The plaintiff was injured at the premises of the defendant when he fell off the back of his trailer whilst trying to tie down a load of steel which had just been loaded onto his truck. The plaintiff was trying to tighten a chain lashed across the trailer from one side of his load to the other by using a device known as a "fixed level chain load binder" (called a "dog"). When the load moved under his feet, he lost his balance and fell, sustaining serious injuries.
  • There was evidence that neither a representative of the defendant nor the employer had ever informed the plaintiff that it was unsafe to place his dogs on the chains whilst standing on top of his load. This was so, notwithstanding that over the years the plaintiff had on occasions slipped as a result of the steel shifting under his feet whilst he was attempting to tighten a load. He had not however previously sustained any injury.
  • There was also evidence from the defendant that there was a stepladder and an access platform on site which would have been available to the plaintiff if required. The plaintiff was unaware of the availability of these items.
  • There was also evidence that on many occasions representatives of the defendant had been present when the plaintiff was tying down his load and had never said anything to him about the safety or otherwise of the plaintiff standing on top of his load and tightening the chains.
  • There was also evidence as to instructions given by the defendant to its own employees who worked as truck drivers in relation to safe loading methods. Those instructions were not however extended to independent contractors such as the plaintiff.

Decision of Trial Judge

  • The matter came before Acting District Court Judge McGrowdie who took the view that the function exercised by the plaintiff in securing his load was no different from that of an employee of the defendant. His Honour considered that, had the defendant had in place a system whereby all drivers, including contractors such as the plaintiff, were given adequate instruction and provided with a means to secure loads without standing on them, the accident could have been avoided. His Honour considered that as the risk of injury to the plaintiff was "readily identifiable" and had also been observed by the defendant on a daily basis, the defendant was in a position to control the loading procedures on its premises even where contractors were involved.
  • In finding for the plaintiff, McGrowdie ADCJ relied on the High Court decision in Stevens –v- Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Limited (1986) 160 CLR 16 where it was held that the obligation to provide a safe system of work should not necessarily be confined to an employer.
  • His Honour also relied on the Court of Appeal decision in TNT Australia Pty Limited -v- Christie [2003] NSWCA 47 where it was held that an occupier owed a non-delegable duty of care to a labour hire employee.
  • Although the plaintiff had considerable experience in securing loads on trucks, his Honour considered he had been given little choice about how to do so and had never been given proper instructions.
  • Accordingly, his Honour concluded that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care which it had breached.
  • The defendant appealed.
  • The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the defendant's appeal, Tobias JA delivering the main judgment.
  • The plaintiff sought to argue that the defendant had numerous indicia of controls in relation to the loading of the plaintiff's truck and the procedures which were to be employed in this.
  • The defendant submitted that its only direct control was in the placing of the steel products upon the trailer of the plaintiff's truck. Thereafter the securing of the load was left to the plaintiff. The defendant argued the circumstances of this case were very different to those in Christie which was a case where the defendant had supplied the plaintiff with faulty equipment and had therefore actively provided a system of work which was unsafe and which the plaintiff was directed to follow.
  • Tobias JA pointed out that the duty of care held to be owed by TNT in Christie was directly based upon the principle expounded by Mason J in Stevens. Christie was distinguished in the present case as there was no allegation that the plaintiff was some sort of de facto employee of the defendant. Unlike TNT, the defendant had not exercised daily control over the relevant work activities of the plaintiff, namely the securing of his load.
  • The plaintiff nonetheless argued on appeal that it was open to the defendant to direct him as to the method he should adopt in securing the load with the dogs and if he had done so, the plaintiff would have complied with the direction and the accident would have been avoided.
  • The plaintiff argued that as the accident occurred on the defendant's premises and as it obviously had control of its own premises, it had a duty to ensure that any work performed by the plaintiff should be carried out safely.
  • The defendant relied on a passage from the judgment of Brennan J in Stevens which included the following:

"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. It does not import a duty to retain control of working systems if it is reasonable to engage the services of independent contractors who are competent themselves to control their system of work without supervision by the entrepreneur… If there is no failure to take reasonable care in the employment of independent contractors competent to control their own systems of work, or in not retaining a supervisory power or in leaving undefined the contractors' respective areas of responsibility, the entrepreneur is not liable for damage caused merely by a negligent failure of an independent contractor to adopt or follow a safe system of work either within his area of responsibility or in an area of shared responsibility."

  • The defendant also relied upon the Court of Appeal decision in National Transport Insurance Limited -v- Chalker [2005] NSWCA 62 where it was held the real question was whether ultimate authority over the contractor in the performance of his work resided in the employer that gave the plaintiff his orders and directions.
  • As in Chalker, the defendant argued that the task of tensioning the chains using a dog was so obviously part of the mental equipment of an experienced driver such as the plaintiff as to mean that it was not unreasonable for the defendant to leave the plaintiff to his own devices. The fact that the defendant was aware of the risk of injury to the plaintiff was not the point, per Tobias JA. That would only be relevant if in fact the defendant owed the plaintiff a non-delegable duty of care akin to that owed by an employer to its employee. That was not the case here.
  • The plaintiff also sought to rely upon the Court of Appeal decision in Rockdale Beef Pty Limited -v- Carey [2003] NSWCA 132 where it was held that a defendant's control over the conduct that gives rise to the risk, a defendant's knowledge of the risk, and the relevant inability of plaintiffs to protect themselves were important factors in determining whether a duty of care to a contractor arose.
  • The Court of Appeal distinguished Rockdale Beef as the defendant did not relevantly have control over the conduct of the plaintiff which gave rise to the risk of the load moving so that he lost his balance and fell.
  • In addition, the plaintiff was fully aware of the risk of falling and considered it obvious. The fact that he was unaware of the availability of a ladder or platform did not constitute either a disability or inability on his part. The plaintiff also had his own doubts as to whether he could safely carry out his tasks from a ladder unless it was appropriately stabilised.
  • Tobias JA stated it was doubtful whether the provision of a ladder or other form of access platform would have been sufficient to prevent the plaintiff from having to stand on top of his load to ensure that "the load goes in the middle". Accordingly his Honour noted a real issue of causation arises.
  • Finally, the plaintiff sought to rely upon the High Court decision in Thompson -v- Woolworths (Qld) Pty Limited [2005] HCA 19 where a contractor engaged to deliver bread to a Woolworths' supermarket injured her back whilst attempting to move heavy industrial waste bins which were obstructing access to the loading bay. In that case, the High Court held that, as the delivery driver was a lawful entrant, Woolworths owed her a duty to do what was reasonable to avoid the risk of injury to her in attempting to move the bins unassisted. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the basis of this decision was clearly that Woolworths required the driver to conform to a delivery system and it was therefore obliged to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the driver in making her delivery by not exposing her to an unreasonable risk of physical injury.
  • Tobias JA held this case was distinguishable from that in Thompson as here there was no system of work provided by the defendant which the plaintiff was required to follow for the purpose of carrying out the task of securing his load.
  • Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held the defendant did not owe any duty of care to the plaintiff with respect to the manner in which he secured his load.
  • Finally, the plaintiff on the hearing of the appeal submitted a Notice of Contention that the defendant had breached cl 39 of the Occupational Health & Safety Regulation 2001 which relevantly provides:

"A controller of premises must ensure that: (a) Safe access is provided to all parts of a place of work to which a person may require access and from which the person may fall ..…"

  • The Court, per Tobias JA, held the duty imposed by cl 39 was confined to the provision and maintenance of safe access to a worker's place of work. In deciding whether the regulation has been breached, it was necessary to distinguish between a worker who was injured at his place of work and one who was injured while gaining access to it. Therefore the regulation did not apply to the present case as the plaintiff was already at his place of work rather than accessing it. The place of work was the top of the load; it had already been accessed by the plaintiff; and this access did not materially contribute or contribute at all to the load moving which resulted in the plaintiff's accident.
  • Accordingly, the primary judge had erred in finding the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care to provide him with a safe system of work with respect to the securing of his load. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was not such as to give rise to any such duty given that the defendant had no control over the manner in which the plaintiff, not being an employee of the defendant, carried out a task which he was at all times experienced in performing.


  • This is the first decision of which we are aware which considers the construction of cl 39 under the Occupational Health & Safety Regulation 2001 to provide safe access to a place of work. The Court of Appeal has signalled that the duty to provide safe access will be narrowly construed so that the actual access to a place of work must be causative of a plaintiff's accident.
  • An occupier does not owe a duty of care to an independent contractor to provide him or her with a safe system of work when the occupier has no control over the manner in which the contractor carries out a task which he or she is experienced in performing. The Court of Appeal distinguished the duty of care held to be owed by an occupier in Christie where the defendant occupier exercised control over the plaintiff’s activities as was also the case in Thompson -v- Woolworths and Rockdale Beef -v- Carey.
  • The Court of Appeal accepted the present case was more analogous to the circumstances in Van Der Sluice -v- Display Craft Pty Limited [2002] NSWCA 204 where the plaintiff was an experienced contractor who fell from a ladder.
  • Another case which we consider relevant but which was not referred to by the Court in this instance is Westco Distributors Pty Limited v Hickey’s Transport Pty Limited [2006] NSWCA 24 where the plaintiff truck driver sued his employer and the occupier of premises where he was undertaking a delivery. The plaintiff was given a defective and inadequate jack by his employer to move pallets on his truck as a result of which he was injured. The Court of Appeal held that the occupier could not be expected to offer assistance where none was sought in circumstances where constant surveillance by the occupier would go well beyond what constituted reasonable steps. The Court of Appeal held the effective cause of the plaintiff’s accident was the damaged equipment provided by his employer as opposed to any defect in the system at the occupier’s premises.
  • The decision affirms the above authorities that a defendant's ability to control the manner in which a plaintiff goes about a task on the defendant's premises remains a crucial factor in determining whether there is a breach of duty in circumstances of injury to an experienced independent contractor.

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.