D & F Estates -v- Church Commissioners for England; CA 1988

References: [1988] 2 All ER 992, [1987] CLY 3582, [1987] 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, [2006] EWCA Civ 1860, [2007] 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, [1988] UKHL 4, [1989] 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 . .

Leave a Reply