“We hired the experts, isn’t that enough?”

A recent decision of the NSW District Court is a sharp reminder that hiring a specialist contractor does not let you off the hook when it comes to workplace health and safety.

In SafeWork NSW v Boral Cement Limited [1], the Court found the operator of a cement facility guilty of a Category 2 WHS offence after a conveyor belt went into uncontrolled free run during maintenance, causing a fluid coupling to explode and seriously injure a contract worker.

The company’s central defence?

It had engaged specialist contractors to do the work, and it was their job to manage the risks.

The Court rejected that argument, and it provides yet another reminder for businesses of some key points when engaging specialist contractors to perform work otherwise outside its own expertise:

• Engaging a specialist contractor does not discharge your WHS duty but it is one way of meeting it if you stay actively engaged to the extent reasonably practicable.

• If the method of work changes on site, your documented safety systems should require the work to stop, a fresh risk assessment to be conducted, and an updated safe work method statement to be prepared, and you must enforce that process.

• You do not need to micromanage a contractor’s every step, but you do need to verify that they are actually implementing the controls they said they would, particularly when conditions on the ground change.

• Your contracts, permit systems and safety documentation are not just paperwork, they define the extent of your control. If those documents give you authority to intervene, a court will expect you to use it.

• Mere assumptions that a contractor “has it covered” will not be enough. Reliance must be founded on actual inquiries, assurances, and a reasonable belief in the contractor’s competence. It is not a set-and-forget approach.

The bottom line is straightforward: if you have the power to act and the information to know something has changed that affects work health and safety, a court will ask why you didn’t.

While you can rely on a specialist contractor, it does not mean that the WHS duty has transferred or is absolved. The question is about what you know and what you can control to manage safety in the workplace.

The case involved the replacement of a conveyor belt on a large bucket elevator at a cement facility in New Berrima, NSW.

The operator engaged Nepean, a specialist engineering contractor, to perform the physical work, and Beumer, the original equipment manufacturer, to provide expert advice and remote supervision.

During the job, the planned method of work changed significantly whereby the crane could not lift the belt and all 244 buckets in one go, so the belt was reinstalled with buckets unevenly distributed. This created a serious imbalance. When the belt was energised, it went into free run and caused a catastrophic explosion of metal debris.

The defence: “we relied on the specialists”

The company argued that it lacked the engineering expertise to supervise the belt replacement, that it had engaged Beumer to advise and Nepean to execute and that once those specialist contractors were involved, it was their responsibility to identify risks and take safety steps.

Where the defence came unstuck was on the question of control. The company’s own contract required Nepean to follow its safety procedures and comply with reasonable directions. Its own safety documents required work to stop when conditions changed. Despite having the tools and the authority to intervene, the operator simply assumed the contractor would handle it.

What determines whether reliance on a contractor is justified?

The Court helpfully distilled a set of principles from previous cases that are directly relevant to any business engaging specialist contractors [2]. The key factors include:

• Whether the task genuinely falls outside the expertise of the business engaging the contractor.
• Whether the contractor has genuine specialist skill and expertise, including knowledge of appropriate safety precautions, that the business itself does not have.
• Whether the business retains the capacity to influence and control how the work is done (including through contractual terms, safety documentation and permit systems).
• Whether reliance is based on actual inquiries and assurances, rather than mere assumptions that someone else will take care of safety.
• Whether it reasonably appeared to the business that the contractor was carefully and safely performing its work.

As the Codes of Practice make clear: never assume that someone else is taking care of a health and safety matter.

References:

[1] SafeWork NSW v Boral Cement Limited [2026] NSWDC 88

[2] Above, at [76]

The views expressed in this article are general in nature only and do not constitute legal advice. Please contact us if you require specific advice tailored to the needs of your organisation.

For more insights from the Kingston Reid team on the workplace law issues facing organisations in 2026, head to our Publications page to access our 2026 Workplace Insights report.