Michael Perigo v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (No 2)

Michael Perigo sought damages from the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (No 2) after an incident at a construction site where he was injured. Perigo, an experienced scaffolder, was employed by a subcontractor to work on a project managed by Leighton. The incident occurred when he fell from a scaffold due to a defect in the scaffolding system. The court was tasked with determining whether Leighton owed Perigo a duty of care, the nature and extent of that duty, and whether there was a breach of that duty. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of non-delegable duty and contributory negligence in apportioning liability.

The primary legal issues revolved around the existence and scope of the duty of care owed by Leighton to Perigo, the principal contractor. The court considered whether Leighton had assumed responsibility for devising and supervising the system of works, thus creating a non-delegable duty towards Perigo. Furthermore, the court examined whether Leighton was aware of a defect in the system and if this knowledge constituted a breach of duty. The court also had to address the principles of contributory negligence, particularly given Perigo's experience and the nature of the work he was performing.

The court held that Leighton owed Perigo a non-delegable duty of care as the principal contractor. It found that Leighton had assumed responsibility for the system of work, including ensuring the safety of the scaffolding. The court determined that Leighton was aware of a defect in the scaffolding system, which constituted a breach of this duty. Regarding contributory negligence, the court acknowledged Perigo's experience but considered the tedious and physically demanding nature of the work, which contributed to the accident. The court apportioned liability between Leighton and Perigo, reducing Perigo's damages by 25% for contributory negligence.

The final orders included a determination that Leighton was liable for 75% of Perigo's damages, with Perigo responsible for the remaining 25%. The court ordered Leighton to pay Perigo the appropriate quantum of damages, reflecting the apportionment of liability.