Farraj v King's Healthcare NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 1203

Facts

  • Mrs. Farraj underwent prenatal testing at King's Healthcare NHS Trust to determine if her unborn child had thalassemia, a genetic disorder.
  • The NHS Trust outsourced the analysis of the prenatal test to an independent laboratory.
  • The independent laboratory allegedly misinterpreted the test results, resulting in the birth of a child with severe thalassemia.
  • Mrs. Farraj brought a clinical negligence claim against the NHS Trust, arguing it was liable for the laboratory's negligence.
  • The court examined the contractual arrangements between the Trust and the laboratory, the degree of control exercised by the Trust, and whether the laboratory’s work was essential to the Trust’s operations.

Issues

  1. Whether the NHS Trust owed a non-delegable duty to ensure the accuracy of the prenatal test results provided by the independent laboratory.
  2. Whether the NHS Trust could be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the independent laboratory.
  3. Whether the relationship and the degree of control between the Trust and the laboratory were sufficient to impose liability on the Trust for the laboratory’s actions.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the NHS Trust owed a non-delegable duty regarding the accuracy of the test results.
  • It was held that non-delegable duties are exceptional and generally arise only in situations involving a high degree of control or dependency, which was not present in this case.
  • The court found that vicarious liability does not typically extend to independent contractors; the laboratory was an autonomous entity and not under the Trust’s direct control.
  • No liability was imposed on the NHS Trust for the independent laboratory’s alleged negligence.

Legal Principles

  • Vicarious liability ordinarily applies to acts of employees, not independent contractors.
  • Non-delegable duties are rare and arise only where there is a special responsibility, such as high control or dependency.
  • The distinction between employees and independent contractors, as well as between core and ancillary functions, is central to determining liability.
  • The nature of the contractual relationship, the degree of control, and the essential character of the contracted function are fundamental considerations in assessing liability.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal concluded that the NHS Trust was not liable for the actions of the independent laboratory, reaffirming that liability for independent contractors performing essential duties is limited in the absence of exceptional circumstances involving control or dependency. This case clarifies the legal boundaries between vicarious liability and non-delegable duties for organizations engaging independent contractors.

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