Independent Contractor in UK Law

On the other hand, for the reasons which I have given, I am of opinion that he is not liable for the negligence of the manufacturer of an article which he has bought provided that he has been careful to deal with a seller of repute and has made any inspection which a reasonable employer would make.

The cases analysed in the immediately preceding paragraphs should be noted with a view to abstracting from them, if it is possible, the essence of being an employee. To distil it to a single sentence I would say that an employee is one who is paid a wage or salary to work under some, if only slight, control of his employer in his employer's business for his employer's business. The independent contractor works in and for his own business at his risk of profit or loss.

My Lords, it is possible for a man to be employed as a servant or as an independent contractor to carry out duties which are exclusively spiritual. He does not devote his working life but his whole life to the church and his religion. The law will ensure that a pastor is not deprived of his salaried pastorate save in accordance with the provisions of the book of rules but an industrial tribunal cannot determine whether a reasonable church would sever the link between minister and congregation.

After considering the cases, it is my opinion that the occupier of a house or land is liable for the escape of fire which is due to the negligence not only of his servants, but also of his independent contractors and of his guests, and of anyone who is there with his leave or licence. The only circumstances when the occupier is not liable for the negligence is when it is the negligence of a stranger.

Hall Russell advanced two reasons for their contention that they had relevantly averred vicarious responsibility on the part of S.I.C. for the negligence of the pilot. In the first place it was said that although earlier authorities had appeared to impose liability on a shipowner for the negligence of a voluntary pilot on the basis of a master and servant relationship this rationale was no longer correct.

It is, of course, trite law that an employer who employs an independent contractor is not vicariously responsible for the negligence of that contractor. I think it is entirely accepted that those cases - and there are some - in which an employer has been held liable for injury done by the negligence of an independent contractor are in truth cases where the employer owes a direct duty to the person injured, a duty which he cannot delegate to the contractor on his behalf.

Where a non-delegable duty arises, the defendant is liable not because he has control but in spite of the fact that he may have none. The essential element in my view is not control of the environment in which the claimant is injured, but control over the claimant for the purpose of performing a function for which the defendant has assumed responsibility. The Ministry of Defence was not responsible for the negligence of a hospital with whom it contracted to treat soldiers and their families.