Australia: High Court Of Australia Reconsiders The Question Whether Principals Should Be Liable For The Negligent Acts Of Independent Contractors

Last Updated: 6 September 2009
Article by Paul Garnon

Judgment date: 2 September 2009

Leighton Contractors Pty Limited v Fox; Calliden Insurance Limited v Fox [2009] HCA 35

High Court of Australia1

In Brief

  • The High Court was asked to reconsider the question of whether a principal should be liable for the negligent acts of independent contractors engaged by them.
  • The High Court upheld the decision in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd2 which found that:

"The [principal's] duty arises simply because he is creating the risk and his duty is more limited than the duty owed by an employer to an imposes a duty to use reasonable care to avoid unnecessary risks of injury and to minimise other risks of injury...if there is no failure to take reasonable care in the employment of independent contractors competent to control their own systems of work, the [principal] is not liable for damage caused merely by the 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".

  • In this case, the High Court overturned a decision by the NSW Court of Appeal that a principal was negligent for failing to provide OH&S induction training and held that the proper question was to ask whether the principal had implemented a reasonable system for ensuring that workers had undertaken relevant induction training.
  • The High Court also stated that it was necessary to exercise caution in translating obligations imposed under statutes, such as the OH&S Act, into a duty of care at common law. It emphasised that "whatever their scope, all duties of care are to be discharged by the exercise of reasonable care. They do not impose a more stringent or onerous burden".


On 7 March 2003, Brian Fox (Fox), the first respondent in each of the appeals, suffered severe injury in the course of working at a construction site. Leighton Contractors Pty Limited (Leighton), the appellant in the first appeal was the primary contractor for the project.

Leighton had contracted with Downview Pty Limited (Downview) to carry out the concreting, who in turn had subcontracted the concrete pumping to Quinton Still (Still) and Jason Cook (Cook). Still and Cook had then engaged Fox and Warren Stewart employed by Warren Stewart Pty Limited (Stewart) as labourers in connection with the concrete pumping for the pour.

The injury occurred when Still, Stewart and Fox commenced a clean of the concrete delivery pipes by blowing an object through the pipes with compressed air. This process was found to have been done in a negligent manner and in breach of the Pumping Code which required, amongst other things, the end of the pipe to be tied to a waste bin. Due to a build up of air pressure, the pipe swung around and struck Fox in the head, causing injury.

The primary judge accepted evidence that Still had been working in the concrete pumping industry for 19 years, Stewart had worked in the industry for 11 years and Fox, an independent contractor, had previously worked as a concrete linesman/pump truck offsider.

District Court Decision

Fox brought proceedings in the NSW District Court in negligence against Leighton, Stewart and Downview. The trial judge, Gibb DCJ, determined that the accident had been caused by the negligent conduct of Still and Stewart. It was found that Still was in charge of the concrete pouring operation and that Stewart had followed his directions. It was also accepted that no person associated with Leighton or Downview gave any direction in connection with the operation.

The claims against Leighton and Downview were ultimately dismissed as there was found to be no relevant breach of duty by either of them. A judgment in the sum of $472,561.95 was entered against Stewart. Unfortunately, however, Stewart had since been de-registered.

Court of Appeal Decision

Fox appealed against the dismissal of claims against Leighton and Downview. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the District Court. Giles, McColl and Basten JJA rejected Fox's case that Leighton was subject to a duty requiring it to supervise the concrete pumping and the line clearing. Rather, it held that Leighton had a general law duty to ensure safe work practices and to take reasonable steps to ensure that those working on the site were properly trained. Specifically, it was decided that Leighton was negligent in failing to ensure that Fox and Stewart had undergone Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) induction training in accordance with the OH&S Regulation 2001 (NSW) and in failing to ensure the operation was carried out in accordance with the Pumping Code. Downview was negligent also for the later failure.

Based on the evidence provided to the primary judge, the Court of Appeal found that had Stewart and Fox undergone relevant induction training, not just a general site induction, they would have been informed of the requirement in the Pumping Code to tie down the end pipe to the waste bin, thereby avoiding the accident. Ultimately, Leighton and Downview were each found to be subject to a common law duty of care for the benefit of Fox and each found to be in breach of that duty. The Court of Appeal then entered judgment against Leighton and Downview in the sum of $472,562.95.

High Court Decision

Leighton and Downview appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal contending that the imposition on each of them of a common law duty of care owed to Fox, an independent contractor, involved an unwarranted extension of the liability of principals for the negligent acts of other independent contractors engaged by them. After the institution of the appeals, Downview was de-registered and leave was given to substitute Calliden Insurance Limited as a second respondent. In response, Fox submitted that the Court of Appeal was correct to find a relevant duty on Leighton to ensure that each person working on its site provides satisfactory evidence of having completed induction training, which was not unduly onerous, costly or time consuming.

In coming to their decision, the High Court firstly noted that the common law did not impose a duty of care on principals for the benefit of independent contractors engaged by them of the kind which they owe to their employees. They applied the decision in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd and noted that in some circumstances, a principal will come under a duty to use reasonable care to ensure that a system of work for one or more independent contractors is safe. A principal is under a duty to use reasonable care to avoid unnecessary risks of injury and to minimise other risks of injury but is not liable for damage caused by a negligent failure of an independent contractor, so long as there was no failure to take a reasonable care in the employment of that independent contractor competent to control their own system of work.

Leighton acknowledged that, as a principal contractor, it had the legal authority to determine who was permitted to come onto its site. It also acknowledged the OH&S Regulation which provided that a principal contractor for a construction project must not direct or allow another person to carry out construction work unless the principal contractor is satisfied that the person had undergone OH&S induction training. Whilst Leighton acknowledged that a principal contractor was required to give site specific OH&S induction training to all persons carrying out any construction work, the High Court distinguished this from work activity based OH&S induction training.

Leighton's obligation was satisfied by ensuring that a person carrying out construction work on site had undergone such OH&S induction training, rather than providing the training itself.

The relevant Code of Practice and OH&S Regulation at the time of the accident provided that a self employed person who had carried out construction work in the course of employment for any period within the two years immediately preceding 1 April 1999 was deemed to have undergone the general health and safety and work activity based health and safety components of OH&S induction training.

The High Court therefore held that Leighton need only be satisfied, that a person has completed OH&S induction training in general health and safety topics and work activity based health and safety topics or that the person had carried out relevant construction work in the course of their employment within the two years prior to 1 April 1999, in addition to completing site specific OH&S induction training.

The High Court agreed with submissions made on behalf of Leighton that the Court of Appeal had imposed on it a duty requiring it to train every worker coming onto its site across a spectrum of trades and professions in safe work practices, which was an unthinkable burden.

The High Court noted that there was no claim for breach of statutory duty but made the helpful observation that this was no doubt due to the terms of the OH&S Act which prevents the duties imposed by it on employers and others as giving rise to a correlative private right of action in civil proceedings.

The High Court acknowledged that it was settled law that a principal may incur liability for either the tortious acts of an independent contractor that it has directly authorised, for failure to co-ordinate the activities of independent contractors or for breach of specific duties as an occupier. However, it rejected that Leighton owed a duty to Fox to take reasonable care to prevent him suffering injury on the site as a result of the negligent conduct of Stewart.

The High Court criticised the Court of Appeal for failing to give consideration as to whether Leighton had implemented a reasonable system for ensuring that workers coming onto the site were identified, required to undergo a site induction and show evidence of completion of general and work activity based OH&S induction training. Finally, the High Court noted that considering Stewart's extensive experience, it was not clear whether he was even required to undergo further OH&S training nor whether that would have included instruction on the Pumping Code sufficient to prevent the injury occurring.

In conclusion, it was held that the Court of Appeal's decision that Leighton had been negligent by reason of an assumed failure to provide OH&S induction training to Fox and Stewart could not be sustained. Nor was it was possible to sustain the Court of Appeal's finding of liability by accepting that Leighton was negligent by its failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that Stewart and Fox had completed OH&S induction training.

In relation to Downview's appeal, the High Court found that had Downview failed to engage a competent contractor, it may not have avoided liability for the negligent failure of the contractor to take reasonable care to adopt a safe system of work. However, provided that the contractor was competent, and provided that the activity of concrete pumping was placed in the contractor's hands, Downview was not subject to an ongoing general law obligation with respect to the safety of the work methods employed by the contractor or those with whom the contractor subcontracted. The High Court found there was no evidence to the contrary to sustain a finding against Downview.

The High Court also warned of the necessity to exercise caution in translating the obligations imposed under statutory and other enactments, such as the OH&S Act and Regulation into a duty of care at common law. For the reasons set out above, each appeal was allowed and orders made by the Court of Appeal set aside.


The relationship between a principal and independent contractor is not one which, of itself, gives rise to a common law duty of care. The scope and content of the duty of care owed by a principal to an independent contractor is governed by the principles espoused by the High Court in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd.

The High Court has maintained that a principal can discharge its duty of care by engaging a competent independent contractor responsible for its own system of work and the principal will not be liable for damage caused merely by the negligent failure of an independent contractor.

While principal contractors may be in breach of their duty of care for failing to engage competent contractors, an obligation requiring the provision of specific OH&S inductions in respect of safe work methods of carrying out specialised tasks was rejected. The principal need only ensure that the contractors carrying out the work had undergone job specific OH&S training, rather than provide the training itself.

Although no statutory breach was pleaded the High Court noted that duties imposed on principals and contractors by Part 2 of the OH&S Act do not give rise to a correlative private right of action.

The High Court has also emphasised the importance that other courts exercise caution in translating the obligations imposed on employers, principal contractors and others under the OH&S Act and Regulation into duties of care at common law. This is because, as Gummow J explained in Roads & Traffic Authority (NSW) v Dederer3, "whatever their scope, all duties of care are to be discharged by the exercise of reasonable care. They do not impose a more stringent or onerous burden."


1 French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Bell JJ

2 [1986] HCA 1

3 (2007) HCA 42

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.