An occupier/principal who devises and controls a system of work under which independent contractors operate owes a duty of care to those contractors extending to the safety of that system, particularly where the contractor works solely for the principal, does not exercise specialist skills, and the principal has knowledge of the specific risk. Contractual allocation of OHS responsibility to the head contractor does not negate this duty, especially where the contract itself recognises the possibility of the principal's negligence. Warning stickers and contractual risk-shifting are insufficient precautions where additional measures (such as mechanical aids, cage height adjustments, or separation of heavy parcels) are within the principal's primary control and are not unreasonably burdensome.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.