Who Is Responsible When a Lift Accident Occurs?
When a lift incident occurs, the building owner is always in scope for liability. Appointing a contractor meets part of the duty but never transfers it. What owners need to have in place.
- Published
In this article 5 sections
In this article
Quick summary
When a lift incident occurs, the building owner is always in scope for liability — regardless of who services the system. Under WHS legislation, building owners carry a primary, non-delegable duty of care as a PCBU. Appointing a maintenance contractor meets part of that duty. It does not transfer it.
The question that follows every lift incident is always the same#
Who is responsible?
The answer involves multiple parties. But one constant appears across every scenario: the building owner is always in the frame. Understanding why — and what documentation changes that exposure — is what this article covers.
Under Australian WHS legislation, the building owner cannot delegate this#
Building owners and strata bodies are classified as PCBUs — Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking. This classification places a primary, non-delegable duty of care on the owner to ensure lifts on their property are safe, so far as is reasonably practicable, for every person who uses the building.
Non-delegable means it cannot be transferred. Not to a maintenance contractor. Not to a managing agent. Not to a strata committee. If the contractor fails, the question is whether the building owner exercised adequate oversight of the contractor’s performance — not whether the contractor absorbs all liability instead.
What the investigation actually examines#
When a lift-related incident reaches legal or regulatory scrutiny, the investigation follows a consistent line of inquiry:
- Did the building owner have an independent AS1735 compliance assessment — separate from the contractor’s service records?
- Were compliance gaps or elevator maintenance deficiencies identified in reports?
- Were they actioned and recorded?
- Was the maintenance contractor’s performance independently verified, or was the contract simply paid and renewed at rollover?
- What does the service record show?
- What is absent from it?
Understanding what compliance documentation needs to contain — and why a maintenance service record alone does not satisfy this standard — is covered in our article on lift compliance audits: costly expense or essential insurance?
The AS1735 compliance obligations that underpin the building owner’s position are covered in detail in our article on what happens when a lift does not meet current Australian standards.
Where each party actually sits#
| Party | Legal classification | Primary liability scope | What reduces exposure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building owner | PCBU — primary duty holder | Non-delegable duty of care for all lift users | Independent AS1735 assessment; documented remediation; contractor oversight records |
| Maintenance contractor | Service provider | Quality of contracted work only | Contractual scope compliance; thorough service records |
| Managing agent | Agent | Scope defined in management agreement | Full execution of agreed scope; escalation records |
| Strata manager | Agent | Scope defined in management agreement | Same as managing agent |
Where the maintenance contractor’s liability sits — and what it does not do#
The elevator maintenance contractor carries direct responsibility for the quality of work performed under their contract. If a safety device they were contractually required to inspect was not inspected, and that failure contributed to an incident, the contractor’s liability is significant and well-established in Australian case law.
But it sits alongside the building owner’s — not in place of it. Both can be found liable simultaneously. The contractor’s exposure does not remove the owner from the frame.
The managing agent question building owners consistently get wrong#
Most building owners assume their managing agent is handling AS1735 compliance oversight.
Most management agreements do not explicitly include it. If the agreement does not clearly define lift oversight as within scope — reviewing reports, escalating deficiencies, commissioning independent assessments — the liability returns directly to the building owner when something goes wrong.
This is why management agreements for buildings with lifts should be reviewed with explicit attention to lift-related responsibilities. The assumption that someone else is handling it is an assumption that has consequences.
The most important single step any building owner can take#
Commission an independent AS1735 compliance assessment. Document the findings. Address the identified gaps through a prioritised programme and record that action.
The assessment establishes the compliance position. The remediation record demonstrates the building owner took their obligations seriously and acted on the evidence. Together, they represent the difference between a defensible position and an exposed one.
ILCPL provides independent AS1735 compliance assessments, expert reports and litigation support for lift-related matters across Australia. We have been engaged as expert witnesses in lift-related proceedings for over four decades.
Call 0417 784 245 to arrange an independent compliance assessment.
