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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal