Occupiers' liability - Liability for independent contractors

Learning Outcomes

This article explains occupiers’ liability for dangers created by independent contractors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, s.2(4)(b), including:

• Engagement of s.2(4)(b) and the statutory focus on “work of construction, maintenance or repair.”
• Conditions in the “acted reasonably” inquiry: reasonableness of entrusting the work; reasonable steps to select a competent contractor; reasonable steps (if any) to check the work.
• Technical complexity and the nature of the work as calibration of the occupier’s obligation to inspect.
• Practical indicators of contractor competence (e.g., qualifications, track record, references, trade membership) and the limited role of insurance on current authority.
• Interaction with other OLA 1957 provisions (such as s.2(3)(b) for skilled visitors) and potential parallel liability at common law where s.2(4)(b) does not apply.
• Non-delegable duties in special relationships (e.g., school-pupil), which may restrict reliance on delegation to a contractor in some contexts.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand how the common duty of care owed by an occupier under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 applies when harm results from the work of an independent contractor. You need to be able to analyse factual scenarios and apply the statutory conditions under which an occupier might discharge this duty, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The general duty of care owed by occupiers to visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
• The specific provision in section 2(4)(b) regarding independent contractors.
• The conditions an occupier must satisfy to potentially avoid liability for a contractor’s faulty work:
  • Reasonableness of entrusting the work.
  • Taking reasonable steps to select a competent contractor.
  • Taking reasonable steps to inspect the work.
• How the complexity of the work affects the occupier’s duty to inspect.
• The statutory scope: s.2(4)(b) is framed around “work of construction, maintenance or repair,” and similar principles of reasonableness may operate at common law where work falls outside this wording.
• Relevant case law illustrating these principles, including Haseldine v Daw & Son and Woodward v Mayor of Hastings, and contractor competence cases like Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club.
• How s.2(3)(b) OLA 1957 may affect the duty for skilled visitors encountering risks ordinarily incidental to their work.
• Awareness that in special relationships non-delegable duties can arise (e.g., school-pupil), potentially limiting reliance on contractor delegation.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Under which section of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 are the rules regarding an occupier's liability for independent contractors primarily found?
   1. s.2(1)
   2. s.2(2)
   3. s.2(3)(b)
   4. s.2(4)(b)
2. An occupier hires an independent contractor to repair a complex piece of machinery. The contractor performs the repair negligently, causing injury to a visitor. Which factor is LEAST likely to be relevant when determining if the occupier discharged their duty?
   1. Whether the occupier checked the contractor's qualifications.
   2. Whether the occupier supervised the contractor's work minute-by-minute.
   3. Whether it was reasonable to hire a specialist contractor for this task.
   4. Whether the occupier had reason to doubt the contractor's competence.

3. True or False: If an occupier hires a competent independent contractor to perform non-technical work (e.g., clearing snow from steps), the occupier generally has no duty to check the work afterwards.

Introduction

Occupiers owe a common duty of care to ensure their visitors are reasonably safe when using the premises (Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957), s.2(2)). However, occupiers frequently employ independent contractors to carry out work, such as construction, maintenance, or repairs. What happens if a visitor is injured due to the faulty work of such a contractor? Is the occupier automatically liable, or can they pass the responsibility onto the contractor?

This article examines section 2(4)(b) of the OLA 1957, which provides specific conditions under which an occupier might discharge their duty of care in relation to dangers created by independent contractors. Understanding these conditions is essential for advising clients and answering SQE1 questions accurately. The statutory scheme is focused on “work of construction, maintenance or repair” and then asks, in substance, whether the occupier acted reasonably: it is not enough that a contractor was involved—the occupier must still show appropriate entrustment, selection and, where appropriate, inspection in the circumstances.

The Duty Regarding Independent Contractors (OLA 1957, s.2(4)(b))

The general principle under the OLA 1957 is that an occupier is not liable for damage caused to a visitor by a danger resulting from the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, provided the occupier acted reasonably in all the circumstances. Section 2(4)(b) outlines three key requirements that an occupier must generally satisfy to show they acted reasonably and potentially discharge their duty.

Key Term: Independent Contractor
A self-employed individual or company engaged by the occupier to perform specific work, over whom the occupier does not generally exercise detailed day-to-day control regarding how the work is done (as distinct from an employee).

Key Term: Common Duty of Care
The duty defined in s.2(2) OLA 1957 requiring an occupier to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be there.

Failure to meet these conditions means the occupier may remain liable for the visitor's injuries, despite the fault lying with the contractor. The statutory wording contemplates that the occupier must take “such steps (if any)” as are reasonable both in checking the contractor’s competence and in checking the finished work, which recognises that in some technical contexts further validation by the occupier might not be reasonable or practicable.

Key Term: Competent Contractor
A contractor with the requisite skill, experience and resources to carry out the work safely and to the expected standard, judged by reasonable inquiry into qualifications, references, past performance and reputation in the relevant trade.

Key Term: Non-delegable Duty
A personal duty of care that cannot be discharged simply by entrusting work to someone else. In certain special relationships (e.g., a school’s duty to pupils), the occupier may remain liable if reasonable care is not taken, even though an independent contractor performed the work.

Conditions for Discharging the Duty

Section 2(4)(b) requires the occupier to demonstrate that they acted reasonably in:

1. Entrusting the work to an independent contractor: The occupier must show it was reasonable to hire an external contractor for the specific task. Generally, the more technical or specialized the work (e.g., lift maintenance, complex machinery servicing, electrical rewiring), the more reasonable it is to engage a specialist contractor rather than attempting the work themselves or using unqualified staff. On modern premises, most significant maintenance and repair tasks will reasonably be delegated, but entrustment should still reflect the nature and risk profile of the job. Where the work is minor and straightforward, the occupier may decide to undertake it in-house, but if their own staff lack relevant skill, entrusting externally is the reasonable course.

2. Selecting the contractor: The occupier must have taken reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the contractor chosen was competent to do the work. This involves more than simply accepting the contractor's word. Reasonable steps might include checking qualifications, seeking references, reviewing previous work, asking about health and safety arrangements, and confirming membership in relevant trade associations. In some contexts, it may be prudent to ask about appropriate insurance cover, although current case law does not impose a general duty to check insurance in all circumstances.

   • Case Example: Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club [2003] - The club was liable for injuries caused by an incompetent stunt team hired for a fireworks display, partly because they failed to check if the team had safety plans or insurance. The case shows that where an occupier invites a contractor to undertake hazardous activities, the occupier should make reasonable inquiries into competence, safety method statements and risk controls. Although a fireworks display is not “construction, maintenance or repair” under s.2(4)(b), its reasoning on selecting competent contractors is frequently used by analogy in negligence claims.
   • Case Example: Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire NHS Trust [2002] - A hospital organising an event engaged a contractor to operate an activity. The court considered whether reasonable care included making inquiries as to insurance. While the case suggested insurance may be relevant to competence checks in some settings, later authorities have doubted any general duty to verify insurance.
   • Case Example: Glaister v Appleby-in-Westmorland Town Council [2009] - The Court of Appeal held there was no general duty on an occupier to check insurance; the core inquiry is competence. Insurance may be relevant where the occupier has reason to suspect the contractor lacks cover or the activity carries particular, foreseeable risks.

3. Checking the work: The occupier must have taken reasonable steps (if any) to satisfy themselves that the work was properly done. The extent of this duty depends heavily on the nature of the work and whether defects would be obvious to a layperson.

   • Technical Work: If the work is highly technical (e.g., lift mechanics, complex electrical installations, sophisticated hydraulic systems), the occupier may not be expected to personally inspect or supervise it, provided they hired a seemingly competent specialist. It may be reasonable to rely on the contractor's specialized knowledge and internal quality controls.
     • Case Example: Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd [1941] - Occupier not liable for negligent lift repair by specialist engineers, as the work was technical and beyond the occupier's capacity to check. The court emphasised that the occupier had acted reasonably by engaging reputable specialists and was not required to re-test or audit technical internals beyond ordinary competence.
   • Non-Technical Work: If the work is straightforward and any defects would be obvious to a layperson (e.g., clearing ice and snow from steps, simple replacement of handrails, cleaning contaminants from floors), the occupier may be expected to check the work. Failure to spot an obvious danger created by the contractor could mean the occupier remains liable.
     • Case Example: Woodward v Mayor of Hastings [1945] - School governors liable when a child slipped on icy steps negligently cleared by a contractor; the danger was obvious and easily checkable. The occupier had not taken reasonable steps to verify that the simple task had been properly completed.

These conditions operate cumulatively: an occupier who reasonably entrusts a technical task to reputable specialists but takes no further steps may still discharge their duty; conversely, where the task is simple and non-technical, omission to make any reasonable check will often count against the occupier.

Worked Example 1.1

Ahmed owns a small office building. He hires 'Sparky Electrics', a local firm recommended by a friend but whose qualifications he doesn't verify, to install new lighting. Sparky Electrics performs the work negligently, leaving a live wire exposed near a light switch. A visiting client receives an electric shock. Can Ahmed rely on s.2(4)(b) OLA 1957?

Answer:
Likely no. While entrusting electrical work to a contractor is reasonable (Condition 1), Ahmed failed to take reasonable steps to satisfy himself that Sparky Electrics was competent (Condition 2). Relying solely on a friend's recommendation without verifying qualifications or reputation may not be considered sufficient. Therefore, Ahmed likely remains liable for the visitor's injury.

Worked Example 1.2

A hotel hires 'LiftsRUS', a nationally recognized and highly reputable lift engineering company with excellent references, to perform annual maintenance on its elevators. Due to an engineer's hidden error during maintenance, a lift malfunctions, trapping but not injuring a guest. The hotel management had no way of detecting the internal mechanical fault. Has the hotel discharged its duty under s.2(4)(b)?

Answer:
Likely yes. (1) Entrusting lift maintenance to a specialist is reasonable. (2) The hotel took reasonable steps to select a competent contractor (nationally recognized, reputable, good references). (3) The work was highly technical, and the fault was hidden; it was reasonable for the hotel to rely on the specialist contractor and unreasonable to expect the hotel management to detect such a fault. The hotel likely discharged its duty regarding this danger.

Additional detail on scope and interaction

Section 2(4)(b) expressly addresses dangers due to faulty execution of “work of construction, maintenance or repair.” If the contractor’s activity does not fall within this class (for example, operating entertainment attractions or staging events), s.2(4)(b) may not be directly applicable, although an occupier may still be liable or escape liability under common law negligence principles using similar “reasonableness” considerations about contractor selection and oversight. In those cases, courts often analyse whether the occupier took reasonable care in choosing a competent contractor and in managing obvious risks associated with the activity.

There is also an important interaction with s.2(3)(b) OLA 1957, which provides that an occupier may expect that skilled persons will guard against risks ordinarily incidental to their calling. For example, a window cleaner working at height can be expected to take care against common occupational hazards. This does not eliminate the occupier’s duty altogether, but it can reduce what is reasonable by way of further inspection or warning when the risk is plainly one the skilled visitor should anticipate.

Finally, in some settings a non-delegable duty may arise. For instance, a school’s duty to pupils has been recognised at common law as non-delegable in certain contexts, which can mean that entrusting tasks to a contractor will not alone absolve the school if reasonable care was not taken. This sits alongside, rather than replaces, the OLA 1957 scheme; the precise route to liability may depend on the pleaded cause of action and the relationship between the parties. The practical takeaway is that in special relationships involving vulnerable persons, courts may impose a more exacting standard where delegation is involved.

Practical factors when assessing “acted reasonably”

In applying the three conditions, consider:

• The riskiness of the job and the foreseeability of harm if poorly executed.
• The contractor’s track record, qualifications, safety documentation and references.
• Whether the occupier knew or ought to have known of any red flags (e.g., prior incidents, evident lack of capacity).
• Whether the occupier’s own staff had the skills to supervise or check the work in a non-technical context.
• The nature of any inspection: an occupier is not expected to perform technical checks beyond lay competence, but for simple tasks, a visual check or functional test may be reasonable.
• Insurance may be relevant as part of competence and risk management inquiries where the activity is hazardous or where the occupier has reason to suspect the contractor lacks cover; however, there is no general duty to verify insurance in all cases.

Worked Example 1.3

A university engages a facilities contractor to clear snow and ice from campus steps before morning lectures. The contractor claims completion. The steps remain visibly icy, and a visiting speaker slips and is injured. The university made no follow-up check. Can s.2(4)(b) assist?

Answer:
Unlikely. Entrusting snow clearance is reasonable (Condition 1). Selecting the contractor may have been reasonable (Condition 2) if they were known and competent. However, the work was simple and any defect was obvious to a layperson. The university failed to take reasonable steps to check the work (Condition 3), akin to Woodward v Mayor of Hastings, so liability is likely to remain with the occupier.

Worked Example 1.4

A shopping centre retains a reputable HVAC firm to service a complex air-handling system. Following servicing, a hidden fault causes fumes to enter a corridor and a visitor suffers a minor respiratory injury. The centre reviewed the firm’s qualifications and references but did not conduct any post-service technical checks. Is the centre likely to have discharged its duty?

Answer:
Likely yes. Reasonable entrustment (technical task) and reasonable selection (competence verified) are met. Given the technical nature of the work and hidden internal fault, it was reasonable to rely on the contractor’s specialised skill and quality assurance. A lay occupier would not be expected to carry out technical verification beyond engaging competent specialists.

Worked Example 1.5

A hospital hosts a charitable fun day and hires an external provider to install and supervise a temporary climbing wall. The hospital checks the provider’s references and experience but does not ask about insurance. A visitor is injured due to negligent supervision by the provider’s staff. Can the hospital rely on s.2(4)(b)?

Answer:
Strictly, s.2(4)(b) addresses “construction, maintenance or repair,” so depending on how the claim is framed, the hospital may need to rely on general negligence principles rather than s.2(4)(b). On those principles, the hospital will point to reasonable selection (references, experience) and that supervision was the contractor’s domain. Courts have indicated there is no universal duty to verify insurance; the core remains competence. Absent specific warning signs, the hospital’s inquiries may suffice to show reasonable care in selection, shifting primary liability to the contractor.

Worked Example 1.6

A school engages a reputable specialist to refurbish a science lab’s gas supply and fume hoods. A contractor’s hidden error results in a gas leak months later, injuring a visiting parent. The school had checked the contractor’s credentials and referees but did not attempt any technical checks. Could reliance on s.2(4)(b) succeed?

Answer:
Likely yes within the OLA 1957 framework: technical work reasonably entrusted and reputable specialists selected; hidden fault makes a lay inspection unrealistic. Note, however, that courts recognise non-delegable duties in school-pupil contexts under common law. Where the claimant is a visitor (not a pupil), the OLA analysis is likely to be decisive. For pupils injured in similar circumstances, non-delegable duty arguments may arise alongside occupiers’ liability.

Evidential points and burden

An occupier seeking to rely on s.2(4)(b) should be able to point to contemporaneous records of:

• The nature and scope of the work delegated, showing why entrustment was reasonable.
• The inquiries undertaken to assess competence (e.g., copies of qualifications, certifications, references, risk assessments).
• Any checks performed post-completion where the work was non-technical (e.g., visual inspection, functional testing, sign-off sheet).
• Communications confirming contractor responsibility for technical assurance and ongoing safety where relevant.

Keeping clear documentation greatly assists in demonstrating that reasonable steps were taken at each stage.

Common pitfalls for occupiers

• Treating the mere fact of hiring a contractor as a complete answer without evidence of competence checks.
• Not recognising when a simple, non-technical job calls for a basic inspection before reopening to visitors.
• Assuming that a long-standing relationship with a contractor is enough without periodic verification of competence, especially after incidents.
• Overlooking s.2(3)(b): when the injured party is a skilled visitor, the occupier may reasonably expect them to guard against ordinary occupational risks; but this does not automatically defeat claims where the risk was not incidental or was exacerbated by the state of the premises.
• Confusing vicarious liability (which does not apply to independent contractors) with the statutory s.2(4)(b) mechanism for discharging the occupier’s own duty.

Exam Warning

Do not assume that simply hiring a contractor automatically absolves the occupier of liability. All three conditions under s.2(4)(b) must be considered in light of the specific facts. Pay particular attention to the steps taken (or not taken) by the occupier to check the contractor's competence and, where appropriate, the completed work. The nature of the work (technical vs. non-technical) is often key. Where the activity falls outside “construction, maintenance or repair,” similar reasonableness principles apply at common law, but s.2(4)(b) itself may not be engaged. Be aware that in special relationships, non-delegable duties may restrict reliance on delegation to a contractor.

Revision Tip

When analysing a problem question involving an independent contractor, structure your answer by addressing each of the three conditions in s.2(4)(b) separately. Use the case law (like Haseldine and Woodward) to illustrate how the duty to check work varies with the task's complexity. Where the contractor’s activity is not covered by s.2(4)(b), apply the familiar negligence framework to selection and oversight. Consider s.2(3)(b) if the injured visitor was a skilled person, and note any special relationships that could give rise to non-delegable duties.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Occupiers owe visitors a common duty of care under OLA 1957.
• OLA 1957 s.2(4)(b) deals specifically with liability for dangers created by independent contractors carrying out construction, maintenance, or repair work.
• An occupier is generally not liable for a contractor's faulty work if the occupier acted reasonably.
• To discharge the duty, the occupier must generally show it was reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor.
• The occupier must show they took reasonable steps to ensure the contractor was competent.
• The occupier must show they took reasonable steps (if any were reasonably practicable) to check the work was done properly.
• The duty to check work is less stringent for highly technical tasks compared to simple tasks with obvious risks.
• Case law like Haseldine v Daw and Woodward v Mayor of Hastings provides guidance on the duty to inspect.
• Competence checks may include qualifications, references, trade membership and track record; there is no general rule that insurance must always be checked, though it can be relevant in particular contexts.
• Section 2(3)(b) OLA 1957 may reduce what is reasonable where skilled visitors encounter risks ordinarily incidental to their calling.
• Where activities fall outside “construction, maintenance or repair,” s.2(4)(b) may not apply and common law negligence principles will guide analysis.
• In special relationships (e.g., school-pupil), a non-delegable duty may arise, potentially limiting reliance on contractor delegation.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Independent Contractor
• Common Duty of Care
• Competent Contractor
• Non-delegable Duty