By Honest Grace Legal | Personal Injury Law | July 2025
This case summary reviews Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 2, a Queensland Court of Appeal decision concerning workplace injury, duty of care, subcontractors, principal contractors, lifting injury, Safe Work Method Statements, construction work, and the limits of liability where specialised work is delegated to an experienced subcontractor.
Case Subject
Principal Contractor Not Liable for Subcontractor’s Worker’s Injury
Background: What Happened in Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd
Luke Sawyer, a concreter employed by subcontractor Cretek, injured his back while lifting heavy steel mesh during a home renovation project in Ascot, Queensland, in August 2016. The work was being managed by the principal contractor, Steeplechase Pty Ltd (trading as SW Constructions or SWC), who had engaged Cretek to lay a polished concrete slab.
Mr Sawyer successfully sued Cretek for damages but also sought to hold SWC liable, arguing it owed him a duty of care as the site’s principal contractor. His claim against SWC was dismissed at first instance on the finding that no duty of care was owed, prompting this appeal.
Key Legal Issues in the Workplace Injury Appeal
- Did SWC, as principal contractor, owe a duty of care to Mr Sawyer, a worker employed by its subcontractor?
- If such a duty existed, did SWC breach it by failing to ensure a safe work system?
- Was SWC required to intervene if it observed unsafe manual handling of heavy materials?
- Did the presence of SWC workers onsite impose additional safety obligations?
What the Court of Appeal Decided
The Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Sawyer’s appeal. It found:
- SWC did not owe a duty of care to Mr Sawyer in the circumstances.
- SWC had reasonably engaged Cretek, a competent and experienced subcontractor, to handle a specialised task.
- There was no requirement for SWC to supervise or control how Cretek carried out its work.
- The fact that Cretek’s Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) did not address loads over 55kg did not put SWC on notice of risk, nor did it imply SWC had to intervene.
- SWC workers onsite were not obliged to monitor Cretek’s activities and did not observe any unsafe practices.
Key Findings on Duty of Care, Subcontractors and Site Control
- No duty to supervise: Principal contractors are not automatically required to oversee subcontractors' safe work systems, especially when subcontractors are experienced and the work is specialised.
- Delegation of safety responsibility: Cretek was fully responsible for its system of work, including ensuring safe lifting procedures.
- Risk knowledge: SWC had provided engineering plans specifying the heavy SL81 mesh and could reasonably expect Cretek to account for the risks.
- Presence not control: SWC’s workers being onsite did not create a duty to intervene or supervise Cretek’s activities.
Outcome of the Appeal
- Mr Sawyer’s appeal against SWC was dismissed.
- SWC’s cross-appeal regarding the seriousness of Mr Sawyer’s injury was also dismissed as irrelevant after the main appeal failed.
- Mr Sawyer was ordered to pay SWC’s legal costs for the appeal.
Why This Workplace Injury Case Matters
This case reinforces the basis that principal contractors are not necessarily liable for the acts or omissions of competent subcontractors unless they retain control over the work or the circumstances demand supervision. It clarifies the limits of duty of care in construction and renovation settings, particularly where there are numerous or multiple subcontractors present, specifically holding the necessary expertise. For construction industry participants, it confirms the legal boundaries around delegation, safety obligations, and liability.
Source
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2025/QCA25-002.pdf