The Court held that AWI owed a duty of care to workers supplied by an independent contractor (Ebenezer) because AWI devised, implemented and controlled the system of work at its factory, retained and exercised day-to-day supervisory power over those workers through its manager Mr La Rosa, and did not leave the direction or coordination of work in Ebenezer's hands. The Court further held that Ebenezer, acting through Mr Gim, was AWI's agent for the purposes of inducting, directing and supervising the supplied workers, because Mr Gim acted with AWI's authority and for its benefit rather than in an independent capacity, applying Sweeney v Boylan and Bird v DP. AWI breached its duty by failing to ensure its manual handling policy was effectively communicated to non-English-speaking workers, failing to specify weight limits for manual lifts, failing to supervise manual lifts, and failing to ensure the adequacy of inductions conducted by Mr Gim, whose partial AI-assisted translation of safety documents was never checked for accuracy. The plaintiff's damages were to be reduced for contributory negligence, but that reduction was to account for the bullying and threats of dismissal that drove his acquiescence to the unsafe direction.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.