Ferguson v Welsh [1987] UKHL 14 (29 October 1987)

Mr Ferguson was paralysed during demolition work carried out by unsafe sub-contractors on council-owned premises. He sued the council as occupiers under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. The House of Lords held the council not liable as they had no knowledge of the dangerous working practices being employed.

Facts

On 16 July 1976, Mr Ferguson sustained a broken back leaving him paralysed from the waist downwards while engaged in demolition work at West Cornforth. The building was owned by Sedgefield District Council who contracted with Mr Spence for its demolition. The contract prohibited sub-contracting without the council’s prior approval. Without obtaining such approval, Mr Spence arranged for the Welsh brothers to carry out the demolition work, who employed Mr Ferguson. The Welsh brothers adopted a highly dangerous system of work, demolishing the building from the bottom up in breach of construction regulations. When a wall collapsed, Mr Ferguson fell and suffered his injuries.

Procedural History

At trial, Staughton J found the Welsh brothers liable but dismissed claims against Mr Spence and the council. The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence and ordered a new trial against Mr Spence but not against the council. Mr Ferguson appealed to the House of Lords seeking a new trial against the council.

Issues

1. Whether Mr Ferguson was a lawful visitor of the council under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, given that Mr Spence had sub-contracted without authorisation.

2. Whether the council owed and breached the common duty of care under section 2(2) of the 1957 Act.

3. Whether the fresh evidence justified ordering a new trial against the council.

Judgment

Lord Keith of Kinkel

Lord Keith accepted that Mr Spence may have had ostensible authority to invite persons onto the premises, making Mr Ferguson a lawful visitor. However, he held that an occupier is not ordinarily expected to supervise an independent contractor’s activities to ensure safe systems of work. The critical question was whether the council knew or had reason to suspect that Mr Spence would sub-contract to operators using unsafe methods. The fresh evidence did not establish such knowledge, as it related largely to activities before the council came into existence following local government reorganisation in 1974.

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Lord Goff reached the same conclusion by a different route. He emphasised that the common duty of care relates to making visitors reasonably safe in using the premises. Mr Ferguson’s injury arose not from his use of the premises but from the manner in which he carried out his work. Lord Goff stated that an occupier’s knowledge that a contractor may be using an unsafe system of work does not of itself impose liability under the Act to an injured employee of that contractor.

Lords Brandon, Griffiths and Oliver

Lords Brandon and Griffiths agreed with Lord Keith. Lord Oliver noted that while circumstances might exist where an occupier could be liable to an employee of an independent contractor due to knowledge and opportunities of supervision, such liability would be as a joint tortfeasor rather than as an occupier. The evidence was insufficient to support such a claim.

Implications

This case clarifies the scope of occupiers’ liability under the 1957 Act in relation to independent contractors. An occupier who engages a competent contractor is not ordinarily obliged to supervise the contractor’s working methods. Liability may arise in special circumstances where the occupier knows or has reason to suspect dangerous practices, but this must be established by evidence. The distinction between dangers arising from the state of premises and dangers arising from working methods is significant in determining occupiers’ liability. The case also addresses how ostensible authority operates where multiple occupiers exist and one permits third parties onto premises without the other’s actual consent.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision refusing a new trial against Sedgefield District Council.

Source: Ferguson v Welsh [1987] UKHL 14 (29 October 1987)