Miljus v Watpow Constructions Pty Ltd

Miljus v Watpow Constructions Pty Ltd concerned an appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal from a decision in favour of the respondent, Watpow Constructions Pty Ltd. The appellant, Mr Miljus, had suffered injuries and sought damages for negligence. The central dispute revolved around whether the occupier of a building site owed a duty of care to provide safe means of access to a sub-contractor's employee who was on a public road adjacent to the site.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether an occupier of a construction site owes a common law duty of care to provide safe access to individuals like the appellant, who were not directly employed by the occupier but were present on a public road in connection with the site. Secondly, the Court had to assess the relevance of Codes of Practice, such as those issued under the *Construction Safety Regulations 1950*, to the existence and scope of such a common law duty of care, particularly in light of established authorities like *Leighton Contractors v Fox* and *Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd*. Thirdly, the Court considered whether any such duty, if it existed, had been breached, and whether the duty could be discharged by engaging a competent independent contractor. Finally, the Court had to determine the appropriate method for assessing damages for lost earnings.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal affirmed that an occupier of a building site can owe a duty of care to persons on an adjacent public road if there is a foreseeable risk of injury arising from the activities on the site. The Court found that the occupier had a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of access to the site, even for those on a public road, and that this duty was not necessarily discharged by the engagement of an independent contractor. The Court also considered the meaning of "access" within the context of the *Construction Safety Regulations 1950*, noting that a breach of a regulation could be relevant to establishing a breach of a common law duty of care. The Court applied principles of negligence, focusing on the foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the steps taken to prevent it.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.