The Court held that an employer who engages independent contractors retains occupational health and safety duties where it has contractual power to direct safety measures, even if that power is not exercised. The majority found that while the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on whether engaging expert contractors discharged the employer's duty to do what was reasonably practicable, the proviso applied because the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Nettle JA dissented on the proviso, finding the misdirection deprived the employer of proper jury consideration of a principal defence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.