This article was originally published on LinkedIn on 22 August 2025. It has been moved to the riskfacilitator Insights library so the website remains the permanent source.[1]

In August 2025, the ACT Supreme Court handed down a decision that should make every organisation stop and think about how it engages contractors. The case of Mason-Leonarder v Balfran Removals Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 363 is not just about legal liability; it’s about how organisations sometimes unintentionally undermine expertise and create risk.

The Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) was ordered to pay 50% of a $1.27 million damages award to an injured contractor. Why? Because CIT’s facilities manager gave directions on how the removalist team should load skip bins. Those instructions:

  • Eliminated safer methods.
  • Increased the likelihood of injury.
  • Ignored the removalists’ own warnings that the approach was unsafe.

Her Honour Ainslie-Wallace AJ put it plainly: by imposing conditions on how the work was to be done, CIT created circumstances in which the job could not be carried out safely.

The Contradiction at the Heart of CIT’s Defence

CIT tried to argue it had engaged the removalists as “experts” and that any restrictions it imposed came from a position of not knowing what was or wasn’t safe. The Court was not persuaded.

If you genuinely don’t know what is safe, why are you instructing experts on how to do the job?

This contradiction highlights a broader problem many organisations face. They bring in contractors for their expertise but still feel the need to dictate methods. Often this comes from a genuine concern, protecting other people, minimising disruption, or reducing costs, but the outcome is the opposite. They create unsafe systems of work and, as this case shows, liability.

A Missed Opportunity to Collaborate

CIT’s underlying concern was not unreasonable. There were real risks to others in the area where the skip bins were being loaded. But the approach, issuing non-negotiable instructions, meant safety for the contractors themselves was compromised.

What could they have done instead?

  • Consultation and engagement. Raise the concern with the removalists: “We’re worried about the safety of others in the area.”
  • Isolation of the work zone. Barriers, exclusion zones, or signage could have been set up.
  • Rescheduling. The task could have been done at a quieter time of day.
  • Spotters or traffic control. To manage risks to bystanders without increasing risks to workers.
  • Equipment options. Considering different positioning or tools to reduce manual handling strain.

By discussing the risk, listening to the contractors’ expertise, and agreeing on controls, CIT could have achieved both objectives: protecting workers and protecting others.

Lessons for Leaders

This case sits at the intersection of law, leadership, and culture. Here are the key takeaways:

  1. Understand your role.
  2. Respect expertise.
  3. Manage dual duties.
  4. Recognise the liability risk.
  5. Lead through engagement.

Broader Implications

This judgment is not an isolated event. Across industries, construction, events, production, education, organisations are increasingly relying on contractors and consultants. The complexity of work means PCBUs must balance multiple duties: ensuring the safety of their own people, contractors, and the public.

But cases like this show the danger of “control creep.” Well-intentioned managers step into the how of work without the expertise to back it up. Instead of reducing risk, they increase it, both practically and legally.

From a Civil Liability Act perspective, CIT’s liability arose because its actions materially contributed to the unsafe conditions. From a WHS perspective, this case reinforces the principle that duties are not discharged simply by outsourcing work. You cannot contract out of responsibility.

The Takeaway

CIT’s $1.27 million mistake was not just about skip bins, it was about culture, consultation, and control.

The lesson is clear:

  • Set safe outcomes, not unsafe methods.
  • Raise concerns, but don’t dictate.
  • Engage expertise, don’t override it.

Risk management is not about ticking boxes or giving orders. It’s about building systems of safety where expertise is respected and risks are managed collectively.

The mantra is simple: Discuss. Listen. Agree. Not Instruct.

Read the full judgment here: https://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgments/mason-leonarder-v-balfran-removals-pty-ltd-and-anor-no-2[2]

References

  1. Paul Chivers, Why Telling Contractors How to Work Could Cost You Millions, LinkedIn, originally published 22 August 2025.
  2. https://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgments/mason-leonarder-v-balfran-removals-pty-ltd-and-anor-no-2, source linked in the original article, accessed 10 August 2026.