Western Australian District Court Judge Troy Sweeney has confirmed the importance of clearly delineating the work of contractors and coordination of that work by a Principal Contractor and confirms that a Principal Contractor is not responsible for directing the methods of work of those contractors. The case is very very long but very very good and reviews almost all the pertinent case law that applies to Principal Contractor/ Contractor Relationships under health and safety Law.
Here is a short excerpt
Pursuant to its contract, NeoWest (the contractor) had autonomy in how it was to complete the works and it was the appropriate body to provide the training and induction within its specialised area and to specify the methods to be used in performing the tasks required of its workers. It would not have been reasonably practicable, or indeed wise, for the first defendant to impinge on NeoWest’s training and induction of its own employees as to the proper and safe method of completing the works within its scope of works and area of expertise and specialised knowledge, possibly to override or even contradict that training and induction. Each individual trade’s expertise and specialist knowledge was the very reason why the first defendant engaged subcontractors to perform the various works in the first place, rather than complete them itself. Please note the difference between this and the Arkwood case (night and day)
Sue