Zheng v Ianni and Ors (No.3)

In the matter of Zheng v Ianni and Ors, the plaintiff, who was a contractor, suffered a personal injury after falling through a void from an upstairs bathroom on a construction site in April 2018. The plaintiff filed a claim against the builders who had contracted with the owners to provide construction works. The builders argued that they were denied access to the site prior to the plaintiff's accident from December 2017, and that their son continued to perform works on the construction site after this date. The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the builders had held out their son as a builder working for the benefit of their business, and whether any representation of authority was withdrawn after December 2017. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the builders, as occupiers, owed the plaintiff a duty of care even after they personally ceased works in December 2017, and whether any such duty of care was non-delegable. The court also had to consider whether the builders were vicariously liable for the negligence of their son.

The court found that the builders had held out their son as a builder working for the benefit of their business, and that there was no evidence that any representation of authority was withdrawn after December 2017. However, the court found that the owners were not required to make any inquiries about the son's capacity as a builder. The court also found that the builders owed the plaintiff a duty of care as occupiers of the site, even after they personally ceased works in December 2017. The court held that this duty of care was not non-delegable. Finally, the court found that the builders were vicariously liable for the negligence of their son.

The court made orders in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages for the injuries sustained. The court also found that the builders were vicariously liable for the negligence of their son, and that the owners were not required to make any inquiries about the son's capacity as a builder. The court held that the builders owed the plaintiff a duty of care as occupiers of the site, even after they personally ceased works in December 2017, and that this duty of care was not non-delegable.