D'Arcy v Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a workplace accident where the appellant, an employee of a contractor engaged by a Crown lessee, suffered severe burns while fibreglassing an underground petroleum storage tank. The appellant brought a claim in negligence against the occupier of the premises, who held a lease from the Crown lessee.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the occupier owed a duty of care to the appellant, the scope of that duty, and whether the occupier had breached that duty. Specifically, the court considered whether the obligations imposed by the *Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011* (ACT) affected the content of the occupier's duty of care, and whether the occupier was obliged to verify the contractor's capacity to comply with the proposed method of work. The court also had to determine if the primary judge had erred in finding that the occupier had not breached its duty of care.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge's finding that the occupier did not breach its duty of care. The court reasoned that the occupier's duty of care did not extend to supervising the detailed work practices of the contractor engaged by the Crown lessee, nor was it required to investigate the contractor's capacity to perform the work safely. The court held that the occupier was entitled to rely on the contractor to implement safe work practices, particularly given the existence of specific regulatory obligations under the *Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011* (ACT) which placed the primary responsibility for safety on the contractor and the Crown lessee. The appeal was dismissed.