A maintenance contractor engaged by a principal to arrange inspection and certification of equipment by a subcontractor does not owe a non-delegable duty of care to users of that equipment merely because the equipment is dangerous or the contractor has assumed contractual obligations to the principal regarding safety. The recognised categories of non-delegable duty (employer/employee, hospital/patient, school/pupil, occupier/invitee) are not to be extended by reference to a general doctrine of extra-hazardous activities. Where an insured's certification that equipment is safe is incidental to and interwoven with its maintenance inspection work, it does not constitute 'advice given for a fee' within an insurance policy exclusion clause.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.