## Facts

- Biffa Waste Services Ltd engaged Maschinenfabrik Ernst GmbH, an independent contractor, involving hazardous waste compaction machinery.
- An incident occurred where a waste compactor malfunctioned, resulting in injury to a Biffa employee.
- The central question concerned the allocation of liability for the accident: whether Biffa could delegate its duty of care to the manufacturer.
- The case arose in the context of tort law and negligence, focusing on operations that present risks to health and safety.
- Significant judicial attention was paid to the contractual arrangements between Biffa and Ernst GmbH, and whether such arrangements could absolve Biffa of liability.

## Issues

1. Whether Biffa Waste Services could delegate its duty of care regarding hazardous activities to Maschinenfabrik Ernst GmbH.
2. Whether the duty to ensure safety in the context of hazardous waste management is non-delegable.
3. What factors determine the existence and scope of a non-delegable duty in hazardous activities.
4. How contractual arrangements between employer and independent contractor affect the allocation of liability for workplace injuries.
5. The relevance and application of established legal precedents on non-delegable duties and vicarious liability in this context.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that Biffa Waste Services could not delegate its duty of care in respect of the hazardous waste compaction activity.
- The duty to ensure safety in hazardous contexts was found to be non-delegable, remaining with the party in control of the activity regardless of contractual arrangements.
- Contracting with an independent contractor did not absolve Biffa of liability for injuries resulting from the hazardous activity.
- The court reaffirmed that non-delegable duties exist particularly where there is a special relationship, the activity is dangerous, and harm is foreseeable.
- The judgment distinguished non-delegable duties from vicarious liability, indicating non-delegable duties apply even absent direct employee relationships.

## Legal Principles

- Non-delegable duties are obligations that cannot be transferred to another party, irrespective of contractual arrangements, especially in hazardous activities.
- Liability for harm in dangerous operations remains with the party creating or controlling the risk.
- The existence of a non-delegable duty is influenced by a special relationship, dangers in the activity, and foreseeability of harm.
- Relevant legal precedents such as Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57 and McDermid v Nash Dredging & Reclamation Co Ltd [1987] AC 906 affirm the non-delegable nature of duties owed by employers to employees.
- Non-delegable duties extend beyond vicarious liability, applying even when work is performed by independent contractors if the employer retains control over hazardous operations.

## Conclusion

The judgment reaffirms that in hazardous activities, the duty to ensure safety is non-delegable and remains with the party in control, regardless of agreements with independent contractors. Contractual arrangements cannot transfer this fundamental obligation, and liability attaches to those who create or control risks. The case clarifies the framework for non-delegable duties in high-risk industries and emphasizes the necessity for strict safety standards irrespective of outsourcing.


Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Maschinenfabrik Ernst GmbH [2009] 3 WLR 324