Todorovic v Moussa

The case of *Todorovic v Moussa* concerned a dispute arising from a workplace accident on a construction site. The appellant, Mr. Todorovic, a sub-contractor, suffered injuries when he fell from a ladder that had been erected by the head contractor, the respondent. Mr. Todorovic alleged that the head contractor owed him a statutory duty to provide safe means of access to his work area. The central question was whether the head contractor had engaged in "building work" or "construction work" for the purposes of the relevant safety legislation, or if the work had been fully delegated to the sub-contractor. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the head contractor had breached its statutory duty to provide safe means of access to the place of work. This involved considering whether the head contractor's actions constituted "building work" or "construction work" under the *Construction Safety Regulations 1950*, and whether the delegation of work to the sub-contractor absolved the head contractor of its statutory obligations. Additionally, the court considered whether the initial assessment of general damages awarded to the sub-contractor was manifestly inadequate, and the appropriate assessment of future economic loss and loss of earning capacity. The court also had to decide whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal found that the head contractor had indeed breached its statutory duty. The court reasoned that the head contractor's involvement in erecting the ladder, which was part of the means of access to the work area, meant it was engaged in construction work and therefore owed a duty of care to the sub-contractor. The court determined that the initial assessment of damages was inadequate and recalculated the award. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the original verdict and judgment were set aside, and judgment was entered for the appellant against the respondents for $118,529.87. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of both trials at first instance, including costs for the first trial on an indemnity basis, and the costs of the appeal.