Contractors, Subbies and You

Case Study – Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142

In a recent Queensland Supreme Court case, Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142, important principles were clarified around workplace health and safety (WHS) responsibilities, particularly, the perenial question of the relationship between principal contractors, subcontractors, and their employees.

This case sheds light on the balance of responsibilities when contractual arrangements involve multiple parties with varying levels of expertise.

The Incident

The case centered on a concreter employed by Cretek Concreting, a subcontractor engaged by SWConstructions, the principal contractor, to carry out residential concreting work.

The worker alleged that he sustained back injuries while performing tasks directed by his Cretek supervisor. The worker filed a claim against both Cretek and SWConstructions alleging breaches of WHS obligations.

The Court’s Approach

The judge addressed whether SWConstructions owed a duty of care to the injured worker. The court ultimately ruled that SWConstructions was not liable for the worker’s injuries because:

1. Competency of the Subcontractor: SWConstructions had engaged Cretek based on their competency as a concreter. The court held that SWConstructions had a reasonable expectation that Cretek would devise and manage its own safe system of work.

2. Control Over Work Systems: Although SWConstructions had overarching WHS obligations as the principal contractor, it did not retain control over the specific tasks Cretek was contracted to perform. The court emphasised that SWConstructions' obligations did not extend to micromanaging tasks that were Cretek’s responsibility.

3. Acknowledgment of Risks: Both SWConstructions and Cretek were aware of the manual handling risks associated with the job. Cretek provided a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) that identified these risks. However, Cretek was deemed responsible for determining how the tasks were performed safely.

   
   

Outcomes

• SWConstructions: Not Liable - The court determined that SWConstructions' duty of care did not extend to supervising the detailed execution of subcontracted tasks. Their reliance on Cretek’s expertise was reasonable.

• Cretek (Subcontractor): Liable - Cretek failed to adequately monitor and manage WHS risks at the site. The court found that Cretek did not implement appropriate risk mitigation measures for manual handling tasks, which directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.

Key Learnings for you

1. Understand Contractual Chains: Principal contractors must recognise the expertise and independence of subcontractors but ensure they have an overarching WHS systems.

2. Competency Assessments: Engaging competent subcontractors with proven WHS systems can mitigate liability risks. Check their SWMS!

3. Clarify Responsibilities: Document your subbies responsibilities and regularly communicate to help ensure a shared understanding of WHS obligations.

4. Monitor but Don’t Micromanage: Principal contractors should conduct periodic safety audits and ensure compliance with WHS standards but avoid direct control over subcontractor-specific operations unless necessary.

Conclusion

The Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd case underscores the nuanced responsibilities in contractual work environments.

While principal contractors must maintain the site's safety, the specific tasks performed by competent subcontractors remain primarily their responsibility.

By fostering collaborative WHS practices and respecting the independence of specialised contractors, employers can minimise risks and meet their legal obligations effectively.

For tailored WHS advice on managing complex contractor relationships, reach out to Vitalshield Health and Safety—your partner in creating safer, more compliant workplaces.