Principal contractor not liable for injuries to sub-contractor on construction site

Construction sites are inherently high-risk environments where workplace injuries are common. Injured workers may be entitled to workers’ compensation and, in many cases, common law damages. But when a subcontractor’s employee is hurt on site, does the principal contractor bear any responsibility?

In a Court of Appeal decision (January 2025), the limits of a principal contractor’s duty of care were tested. This case offers valuable insights into workplace injury claims, appeals, and risk allocation on construction sites.

In the significant ruling of Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 2 (handed down in January 2025), the Queensland Court of Appeal has upheld a Supreme Court decision that clarified the limits of the duty of care owed by principal contractors toward subcontractors’ employees, reinforcing key principles in workplace liability for injured workers.

Chief Justice Bowskill (with whom Boddice JA and Bradley J agreed) affirmed that the principal contractor was not liable for injuries sustained by a subcontractor's employee during specialised work on a construction site.

Incident that led to worker’s injury

Mr Sawyer, an employee of Cretek Concreting, suffered a significant lower back injury on 22 August 2016 while working on a residential construction project in Ascot, Queensland. The project was overseen by principal contractor Steeplechase Pty Ltd trading as SW Constructions (SWC).

Cretek Concreting had been subcontracted to perform specialised concreting tasks, including installing heavy steel mesh sheets, each weighing approximately 105 kilograms.

The incident occurred during site preparations for concrete pouring, with four Cretek workers in attendance, including Mr Sawyer and his supervisor.

While manoeuvring one of the mesh sheets, Mr Sawyer experienced lower back pain. He continued working despite the pain, but his condition persisted, and he experienced a further exacerbation or aggravation on 3 July 2017 while bending over to get a drink during a work break.

Mr Sawyer was subsequently diagnosed with a lower back injury, as well as an aggravation of a pre-existing psychological injury. He lodged a statutory workers’ compensation claim, which was accepted by WorkCover Queensland, and benefits, including weekly payments and medical expenses, commenced.

Worker pursues a common law claim

Beyond statutory workers’ compensation entitlements, many injured workers have the right to pursue a common law claim for damages. These claims typically arise when an employer fails to uphold their duty of care, resulting in a preventable workplace injury. In industries like construction, where safety risks are heightened, establishing liability in such claims is critical.

In this case, Mr Sawyer’s symptoms became too severe for him to continue working, and he eventually ceased working for Cretek. He then pursued a common law claim for damages, arguing that both Cretek (his employer) and SWC (the principal contractor) were negligent, and that their negligence caused his workplace injury.

First instance decision – Supreme Court Queensland

At first instance, in Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142, Justice Crowley determined that SWC (the principal contractor) did not owe a duty of care to Mr Sawyer.

The Supreme Court emphasised Cretek's role as a competent, specialised subcontractor responsible for its own safety systems, and SWC's lack of control over Cretek's specific work methods. While the claim against SWC was dismissed, Cretek were found liable for breaching their duty of care and ordered to pay damages, or compensation, in the sum of $781,082.09.

Injured worker appeals Supreme Court decision

Mr Sawyer challenged the trial judge's findings on two key grounds, alleging that:

1. SWC did, in fact, owe him a duty of care; and
2. SWC breached the duty of care they owed to him.

Mr Sawyer argued that because SWC failed to ensure Cretek was competent to perform the required task safely, and that SWC's leading hand failed to intervene when allegedly observing dangerous activity on site, negligence ought to be found against them.

Court of Appeal's analysis

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from Mr Sawyer and found that SWC did not owe him a duty of care for the injuries he sustained while in the employ of Cretek.

Chief Justice Bowskill's judgment emphasised several crucial factors that supported the decision to dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision at first instance:

1. Cretek was a specialist contractor

The installation of polished concrete flooring required particular expertise, especially regarding mesh placement to prevent cracking. Evidence confirmed that SWC was "not licensed and not skilled to do slabs," while Cretek possessed both the necessary licensing and expertise.

The Court rejected attempts to characterise the work as non-specialised by breaking it into component parts, finding this approach artificial. Since Cretek had the necessary skills and licenses, SWC was not responsible for supervising them.

2. Established knowledge and relationship

SWC had engaged Cretek for approximately ten years prior to the incident and reasonably considered them a reputable and competent concreting contractor.

SWC had provided engineering plans specifying the SL81 mesh requirements before obtaining Cretek's quote, which Cretek were aware involved “heavier than usual” mesh sheets. It was not necessary for SWC to provide any further warnings to Cretek regarding the weight of the mesh sheets.

3. Safety documentation

The Court rejected arguments that Cretek's Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS), which only addressed lifting objects up to 55kg and did not address risks of lifting objects weighing more than 55kg, put SWC on notice of potential safety issues.

Her Honour found that as a competent specialist contractor, Cretek was responsible for its own safe work systems. The fact that Cretek sent four workers to the site specifically because of the heavier mesh requirements demonstrated their awareness and capability to manage the risks.

4. Site supervision

The mere presence of SWC's leading hand and another worker on site did not create additional obligations, particularly as the work Cretek was contracted for was a self-contained activity. There was no evidence that SWC controlled Cretek’s system or work, nor any evidence that SWC observed any dangerous activity which would have enlivened a duty to intervene.

Key implications for contractors and injured workers

The outcome of this case reinforces several important principles:

• Principal contractors are not generally liable for injuries to subcontractors' employees when work is performed solely under the subcontractor's direction;
• Engaging competent specialist subcontractors can effectively limit principal contractors' liability;
• Clear communication of projects and plans can establish reasonable delegation of responsibility;
• The presence of principal contractor personnel on site does not automatically create supervisory obligations; and
• Subcontractors must take primary responsibility for implementing appropriate safety systems within their area of expertise.

Conclusion

Both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions establish clear boundaries around principal contractors' duty of care. While principal contractors maintain overall site safety obligations, these do not extend to supervising specialised tasks performed by competent independent contractors.

This decision serves as a crucial reminder for businesses and contractors operating in and around the construction industry; principal contractors must ensure they engage competent subcontractors and provide clear project specifications, while subcontractors must take responsibility for implementing appropriate safety measures.

Contacting Hall Payne Lawyers

You can contact us by phone or email to arrange your consultation; either face-to-face at one of our offices, by telephone or by videoconference consultation.

Phone: 1800 659 114
Email: general@hallpayne.com.au