In November 2025, the High Court reaffirmed the principle that property owners cannot evade liability for unsafe working conditions on their premises by outsourcing hazardous work to independent contractors.

The claimant, an employee of an asbestos removal company, instituted an action for damages against both his employer and the owner of a warehouse after falling through a skylight whilst working on the roof of the building. The claimant alleged that there were no safety harnesses or fall-arrest systems available at the time of the incident and that the skylight, which was covered in moss and dirt, was indistinguishable from the surrounding roof panels.

The warehouse owner argued that it had appointed a competent independent contractor who bore sole responsibility for occupational health and safety compliance. The contractor in turn claimed that the claimant was negligent in failing to use protective equipment. The expert evidence however revealed that there was no fall protection plan in place and that the occupational health and safety agreement between the property owner and contractor was outdated and non-compliant with the applicable regulations.

In assessing liability, the court applied the test in Langley Fox Building Partnership v De Valence, which considers three key questions:

1              Whether a reasonable person have foreseen the risk of danger arising in consequence of the work that they employed the contractor to perform, if so;

2              Whether that person would have taken steps to guard against the danger; and

3              Whether those steps were in fact taken in the circumstances.

The court held that a reasonable property owner would have foreseen the danger posed by the moss-covered skylights and would have implemented measures to prevent injury from occurring, and that the contractor failed to provide fall-arrest equipment and adequate supervision. The court found that both the property owner and the contractor were jointly and severally liable for 60% of the claimant’s damages, attributing the remaining 40% to the claimant’s contributory negligence for proceeding to work without safety equipment.

This judgment serves as a reminder that delegating dangerous work to independent contractors does not absolve property owners of their duty of care to ensure that all reasonable precautions are taken to prevent foreseeable harm from occurring on their premises.

Bennet v Prima Toys and Leisure Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another (2025)