1. Weimar InvestmentsLtd is owned byMr BobMann.The corebusiness ofhis companyistoacquire gold mining concessions and toprocessthe ore taken from them.The opencutmining on Mann'smainconcession in Hillgrove, New SouthWales,is carried out byRathenauLtd.It is a smallcompany ownedandoperated by itstwodirectors, MrBarrie Bauer and Mr MurrayKapp.RathenauLtd hasitsown taxationarrangementsin regard tothe workofthe men. For a number of years,themenhave worked the concession, withBauerdynamitingthe ore face andKappoperatingthefront-end loader.Afterdynamiting, Kappscoopsupthe ore with thefront-end loaderandloads atruck with the ore,which isthen driven tothe Weimarprocessingplantnearby. Rathenau Ltd leased thetruckfromWeimar Investments Ltdon termsthatwere very advantageoustoRathenau Ltd.Thecompanynow owns and operates atruck,with its operationalexpenses metentirelybythe company,exceptforitsregistration,which isinBauer'swife's name butpaid for byWeimarLtd.

BauerandKapp only work on theconcessionwhen the weather is suitable.Mann accepts this and has referred tothemas 'hisbest men'and that they are'worth10 ofthoseunionblokes'.A high standardof safetytrainingisexpectedofworkers whouseexplosivesin the miningindustry. Earlierin theyear Mann paid forboth mentoattendamandatoryrefreshercourseon mining safety, whichincluded instruction ontheproperuseof detonators andexplosives. There is no set amountofore thatMannexpectsBauerandKapp todeliver totheprocessingplant.He paysthem ona'perton ofore'basis.Thereisa smallon-siteofficeattheconcession. From timetotime,Mann telephonesthemen thereandadvisesthem on the qualityof previous oredeliveries.Themenusethis advice as a guidetowhichpart oftheopen facethey should blast.On occasions when therehavebeenmore than threedeliveriesinarowofsub-standard ore,Mann visits themenon the site, and hasoften becomevery angrywiththem.Onone occasion he threatened totakeback their Weimarcompanyuniforms and baseballcaps and give the work toother workers.

Bauerdynamited theoreface withoutgiving duewarningtoKapp.Kapp tried to take cover butsufferedseverelacerationstohisleftleg, caused by fragments ofblasted rock. Kappbroughtanaction in negligence. The gistof Kapp's argumentwasthathe stoodinarelation ofemployment(that is, hadacontractofemployment) withMannand that,ashis employer,Mann mustaccept vicariousliabilityforhisinjuries.

Advise as to whether Mann can be held liable for Mr Kapp's injuries. (Consider both vicarious liability and the non-delegable duty of care).

(15 marks)