References:  2 All ER 992,  CLY 3582,  1 FTLR 405
The main contractor on the site subcontracted the interior plastering. Fifteen years later, the plasterwork collapsed causing injury. The plasterer had not used the plaster specified.
Held: Appeal allowed. A contractor may have contractual or statutory duty to supervise, but not necessarily in tort. A main contractor will not have responsibility in tort for failure to supervise the acts of a sub-contractor where it would be unreasonable to expect him to provide supervision.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Boyland and Son Ltd -v- Rand CA (Bailii,  EWCA Civ 1860,  HLR 24)
The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to . .
- Appeal from – D & F Estates -v- Church Commissioners for England HL (Bailii,  UKHL 4,  AC 177)
The House considered the liability of main contractors on a construction site for the negligence of it sub-contractors.
Lord Bridge said: ‘It is trite law that the employer of an independent contractor is, in general, not liable for the . .