MAIN CONTRACTOR DID NOT BREACH DUTY OWED TO EMPLOYEE OF SUB-CONTRACTOR

Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1496; [2006] All ER (D) 133 (Nov), 10 November 2006

In Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1496; [2006] All ER (D) 133 (Nov), 10 November 2006, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the decision of Judge Marr-Johnson ([2006] All ER (D) 223 (May)) and held that the defendant main contractors had not breached the duty of care which they owed to an employee of a sub-contractor to supervise the work so as to ensure that it was carried out safely. On the facts it was found that the main contractor had not been aware of the means by which the sub-contractors intended to carry out the work and, in the absence of such knowledge, it could not be said that they had breached their duty to ensure that it was carried out safely. The same conclusion was reached in relation to the claim against the occupier of the premises where the work was carried out. They equally did not have knowledge of the sub-contractors’ intention in relation to the mode of carrying out the work and so could not be said to have been negligent in failing to pass on information to the sub-contractors about the risks attendant upon their proposed course of conduct.