Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 AUGUST 2023

Principal contractor liable for unsafe access ladders, despite third party's specialist expertise

Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Contributor
Cooper Grace Ward

Cooper Grace Ward

Cooper Grace Ward was established in 1980 and has quickly become one of the largest independent...

View firm profile
Explore more from Cooper Grace Ward

'Specialist contractor' defence does not extend to protect principal contractors for breaches of their responsibilities.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Damian Hinkley
Damian Hinkley
Author LinkedIn connections

In this recent Supreme Court decision of Speziali v Nortask Pty Ltd [2023] QSC166, a principal contractor was found primarily (75%) liable for injuries sustained by an employee of a specialist contractor on the basis that the principal contractor failed to provide a safe means of access to an elevated work area.

This case serves as a convenient reminder that the 'specialist contractor' defence will only be available to principal contractors when injuries are sustained as a consequence of that core work. The defence does not extend to protect principal contractors for breaches of their responsibilities.

Facts

Mr Speziali was employed by Nortask Pty Ltd (a specialist civil construction and engineering company) as a rigger/dogger. He was instructed to perform repair works at an oil refinery owned by Dalby Bio-Refinery Limited (DBL).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

© Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers

Cooper Grace Ward is a leading Australian law firm based in Brisbane.

This publication is for information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain advice that is specific to your circumstances and not rely on this publication as legal advice. If there are any issues you would like us to advise you on arising from this publication, please contact Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

How To Draft A Defence And Reply

Queensland civil procedure requires defendants to respond to each factual allegation with precision—admissions, denials, or non-admissions must be properly explained, while inadequate responses risk being treated as admissions. Replies serve a distinct and limited purpose, addressing only new matters raised in the defence that could affect the claim's maintainability or introduce unexpected factual questions.
AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Counterclaims In Queensland Civil Proceedings: Complete Guide

When a defendant in Queensland civil litigation wishes to pursue its own claim against the plaintiff, a counterclaim provides the procedural mechanism to do so within the existing proceeding. Understanding the technical requirements for pleading, serving, and answering counterclaims—including joinder of additional parties, limitation periods, and the effect of discontinuance—is essential for both claimants and respondents navigating commercial disputes.
AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Video

It Depends – Can A Limited Recourse Borrowing Trust Acquire More Than One Asset? (Video)

Under Australian superannuation law, limited recourse borrowing arrangements typically require separate bare trusts for each asset acquired by an SMSF. However, certain exceptions allow multiple assets to be held in a single bare trust, including identical assets purchased simultaneously, permanent fixtures spanning multiple titles, and assets legally required to be dealt with together. Understanding these nuanced rules is critical to avoid serious compliance, tax, and duty implications.
AustraliaWealth Management
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Article

First Right To Disconnect Rulings Clarify The Bar For A Contravention Of The Right To Disconnect Laws

In the first substantive rulings on Australia's right to disconnect laws, the South Australian Employment Tribunal has determined that an Adelaide hairdressing salon did not breach its apprentices' rights despite sending frequent out-of-hours messages via TikTok and Snapchat. The Tribunal drew a critical distinction between unwelcome communication and actually preventing employees from disconnecting, establishing that subjective pressure without demonstrable consequences does not constitute a breach.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Article

Attempt Is Enough: Record Personal Penalty Signals ACCC’s Zero Tolerance For Cartel Conduct

The Federal Court has imposed a record $1 million personal fine on an executive for attempting to induce competitors into cartel arrangements in the oil and gas services industry, despite all five attempts failing. The Court also issued a non-indemnification order preventing the executive from using insurance or company funds to pay the penalty, marking a significant escalation in competition law enforcement.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward