Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 1 WLR 1553

A council engaged a contractor to demolish a building as part of a housing development. Although the agreement prohibited subcontracting, the contractor passed the work to another business. An employee of that subcontractor was injured through its unsafe working system. He sued the subcontractor, the main contractor and the council. The contractors lacked public liability insurance, making the potential responsibility of the council particularly important to recovery. The House of Lords considered whether the council's position as occupier required it to supervise the subcontractor's method of demolition or otherwise answer for the resulting injury.

Was the council responsible for the unsafe demolition method used by an unauthorised subcontractor, where the injury arose from that working method rather than a defect in the premises?

The House of Lords rejected the claim against the council. The injury arose from the subcontractor's unsafe system of work, rather than a premises danger which the council was required to remedy or supervise. In the absence of special circumstances, an occupier could entrust specialist work to a competent independent contractor without taking over responsibility for its working methods. Even assuming that the worker had permission to be on the site, that did not establish the asserted duty. The contractors' lack of insurance did not expand the council's legal obligations. The decision leaves separate questions where an occupier knows of a specific danger, negligently selects a contractor or undertakes relevant supervision.

An occupier is not ordinarily required to supervise the working methods of a competent independent contractor in the absence of circumstances creating that responsibility. Ferguson rejected liability for the subcontractor's unsafe demolition system; it is not a blanket immunity for all contractor-related injuries.

Ferguson distinguishes dangers arising from the state of premises from those created by the contractor's own system of work. It also prevents lack of insurance elsewhere in the contractual chain becoming a reason to impose a duty on the landowner. The precise allocation of responsibility and any warning signs of incompetence still matter. A statement that occupiers are never liable for contractors' conduct would go beyond the decision and overlook ordinary duties of reasonable selection and care.