Australia: Non-delegable duty of care - dangerous activities - whether liability arose out of insured´s business - professional advice exclusion : Transfield Services (Australia) v Hall; Hall v QBE Insurance (Australia) [2008] NSWCA 294

Last Updated: 27 November 2008
Article by Olivia Dinkha

Originally Published 10th November 2008

Beazley JA; Campbell JA and McClellan CJ at CL

In Brief

  • The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether or not an "extra-hazardous" or "dangerous activity" gives rise to a non-delegable duty of care.
  • The Court rejected the notion that there exists a doctrine of "extra-hazardous" activities, and in doing so departed from the High Court's decision in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) HCA 13 which expanded the categories of non-delegable duty to impose on a principal a liability for the negligent actions of an independent contractor in respect of extra-hazardous activities.


  • In 2002 the plaintiff was employed by the Royal Australian Navy and worked as a facilitator and maintainer at a physical fitness facility at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia. The facility consisted of a course of low and high ropes, on which a participant could carry out various physical activities.
  • The course had been installed by Rope Tech Australia Pty Ltd in conjunction with Merrybrook Pty Ltd in 1993.
  • On 29 January 2002 the plaintiff carried out an inspection of the course and was preparing to abseil down from it. As the plaintiff placed his weight on the abseiling rope the safety strop from which it was suspended broke and he fell about 10 metres to the ground suffering significant injuries.
  • The plaintiff sued the following three defendants:
  1. Adventure Training Systems Pty Limited ("ATS"), the predecessor to Rope Tech Australia Pty Ltd. ATS was a New South Wales based company which was involved in the fabrication, installation, maintenance and repair of certain aspects of the course and its component parts. ATS took no active part in the trial or the appeal.
  2. Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited ("Transfield"). Transfield had contracted with the Commonwealth to maintain plant and equipment at HMAS Stirling. ATS had inspected the rope course in question in December 2001 pursuant to a contract it had entered into with Transfield.
  3. QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited ("QBE"). QBE was the public and product liability insurer of Adventure Training. Leave was granted for QBE to be joined as a defendant pursuant to s 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW).

Supreme Court Decision

  • After the plaintiff's injury the strop was inspected and the shrink wrap covering it was removed. It was found that the wire rope underneath the shrink wrap was badly corroded. Uncontested engineering evidence established that the corrosion underneath the shrink wrap was foreseeable in an open-air environment near the sea. The trial judge found that the shrink wrap should have been removed by ATS during the inspection and that the removal of the shrink wrap was easy, replacement of it was inexpensive and the corrosion was such that it would have been readily visible if the shrink wrap had been removed. On this basis ATS was held to be negligent.
  • Even though ATS was an independent contractor, the trial judge found that Transfield owed a non-delegable duty of care to the users of the rope courses and was therefore liable for the negligence of ATS.
  • The trial judge also found that QBE was not liable to indemnify ATS for its liability. The basis of this finding was that QBE's liability to indemnify arose under the policy only in relation to liability arising out of the insured's business, and the liability of ATS in the present case did not arise out of the insured's business.
  • Against the possibility that she was wrong in that conclusion the trial judge also considered three other arguments that QBE put as to why the policy would not respond even if the loss had been one that arose out of the Insured's Business. Those arguments were:
  1. the policy provided indemnity only concerning claims arising out of or in connection with any Product, and the ropes course was not a "Product" within the meaning of the policy;
  2. the liability fell within an exclusion of liability caused by or arising out of the rendering of professional advice or service by the Insured; and
  3. the liability fell within an exclusion of liability caused by or arising out of advice given for a fee.
  • The trial judge rejected arguments (i) and (ii), but upheld argument (iii).

Court of Appeal Decision

Non-delegable duty

  • Transfield appealed against the trial judge's finding that a non-delegable duty of care existed. It submitted that it owed no duty of care at all to the plaintiff, but in the alternative if it did owe a duty of care, that duty of care was not a non-delegable one.
  • In Kondis v State Transport Authority [1984] HCA 61 Mason J referred to a non-delegable duty as being one "...of such a nature that its performance cannot be delegated to a contractor on the footing that delegation to a competent contractor is a sufficient compliance with the duty".
  • Campbell JA held that a non-delegable duty differs from an ordinary duty of care in negligence, which only places on the defendant a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm of a particular type to the plaintiff. A person subjected to a non-delegable duty cannot perform it by taking reasonable care to select an appropriate independent contractor to carry out the acts that eventually injure the plaintiff, however, it falls short of a duty of strict liability. Campbell JA found before a plaintiff can succeed in a case based on breach of such a non-delegable duty, the plaintiff must establish that someone has been negligent.

Was the activity an "inherently dangerous" one?

  • On appeal the question of whether or not Transfield owed a non-delegable duty to the plaintiff was examined by considering whether the law recognised special rules governing liability for "inherently dangerous" activities.
  • In Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd [1986] HCA the High Court was asked to consider whether a person who engaged an independent contractor to perform extra-hazardous operations owes a non-delegable duty of care to someone who it was foreseeable would be injured in the course of those operations. That argument had previously been rejected by Jordan CJ in Torette House v Berkman [1940] HCA 1. However, in Torette House no ratio decidendi had emerged from the High Court's decision. Mason J in Brodribb held while the doctrine of extra-hazardous activities may be treated as an "exception to the general rule that a principal is not liable for the negligence of his independent contractor, it is in truth an instance of strict liability for breach of a duty of care which the principal personally owes to the plaintiff. The principal's liability is therefore primary, rather than vicarious". Brodribb expressly rejected the proposition that a person owes a non-delegable duty to ensure that reasonable care is being undertaken by an independent contractor who is employed to engage in extra-hazardous activities. Campbell JA therefore held that even if the activity to be carried out by ATS was extra hazardous, that alone would not suffice to impose liability on Transfield.
  • Campbell JA further held that the only thing that could be arguably said to be extra hazardous, or inherently dangerous, about the activity of inspecting the wire ropes is the fact that the person doing the inspection is working at a height. His Honour held that this was not a situation which could give rise to a "special danger to others".
  • Campbell JA was referred to a latter decision of the High Court by counsel for the respondent of Burnie Port. The facts in this case were that the defendant was a building owner who retained an independent contractor to carry out work on the defendant's premises. Those premises contained some highly inflammable material that was ignited when welding activities carried out by the contractor caused sparks or molten metal to ignite the material. The plaintiff was an occupier of adjacent premises whose goods were ruined when the fire spread. The court held that the defendant was in breach of a non-delegable duty of care.
  • Campbell JA considered Burnie Port replaced the strict liability for the spread of fire with a liability based on a non-delegable duty of care of the person in control of the premises. Campbell JA did not consider the ratio in Burnie Port applied in the present case as Transfield was not the occupier of any relevant premises nor did any dangerous activity carried out on its premises cause damage to someone outside the premises.
  • After reviewing a number of supplementary decisions of the High Court including Northern Sandblasting Pty Limited v Harris (1997) HCA 39, State of New South Wales v Lepore (2003) HCA 4 and Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery (2007) HCA 6 Campbell JA noted there is nothing in these decisions of the High Court providing reason to believe that the law has changed from that stated in Brodribb, to the effect that employing an independent contractor to carry out extra-hazardous activities is not sufficient to impose on the employer a non-delegable duty of care concerning the carrying out of those activities.
  • Accordingly, the trial judge's finding that Transfield owed a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff was held to be erroneous and set aside.

Was Transfield vicariously liable for ATS?

  • The plaintiff by way of Notice of Contention sought to support the trial judge's verdict on the basis that Transfield was vicariously liable for the negligence of ATS.
  • The plaintiff argued that the removal of the shrink wrap was a task that was necessarily delegated by Transfield to ATS if the safety strop was to be visually inspected throughout its length. Referring to Jordan CJ in Torette House, the plaintiff submitted that someone who engages an independent contractor can be liable because "the very act or omission which caused the plaintiff's injury was necessarily involved in the performance of the contract with Transfield".
  • Campbell JA held even if it were the case that Transfield had directed ATS to usually survey the extremities of the cable, it was the failure to remove the shrink wrap and not carrying out the task that had been directed that was a cause of the damage. As such Campbell JA held that the general test articulated by Jordon CJ in Torrette House for vicarious liability for the acts of an independent contractor is not satisfied in the present case, because the negligence of ATS was in applying the methods selected by the contractor for achieving the results contracted for. Furthermore it was held that even if the shrink wrap had been removed, this would not have caused any damage, but would have more likely prevented the damage that actually arose.
  • In these circumstances the finding that Transfield was liable for the injuries of the plaintiff was set aside.

Arising "in and out of the insured's business"

  • The other issue that the Court was asked to examine was the liability of QBE. The trial judge held that the liability of ATS to the plaintiff did not arise out of the insured's business, within the meaning of the policy. By cross appeal against QBE, the plaintiff sought to reverse that finding.
  • One of the reasons that the trial judge concluded that the liability of ATS to the plaintiff did not arise out of the insured's business was because it was not ATS, but Rope Tech that had installed the course, and the expression "business" did not extend to conducting a maintenance inspection of courses that ATS had not installed.
  • Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the proposal made it clear that ATS was a continuation of the business Rope Tech Australia and that the expression of "business" should be construed as extending to carrying out maintenance inspections of rope courses that had been installed by Rope Tech Australia.
  • Counsel for QBE submitted that the "business" for the purpose of the policy should be held to be that which is stated as being the "occupation" in the renewal certificate dated 2 January 2002. On appeal Campbell JA held that it was preferable construction that the term "business" in the policy should be construed as being the same as the occupation identified in the renewal certificate and that business still includes "sale, installation and training of ropes confidence courses".
  • It was held that if a person in the course of carrying out a business carries out a certain type of activity that is incidental to that business then those activities ought to be considered as part of carrying on the business as such.

Accordingly, it was held that the fact that carrying out inspection of and reporting on ropes training courses does not in itself fall within the terms "sale, installation and training of ropes confidence courses" is not enough to show that inspection and reporting is not an incident of the business of selling such courses.

Was the rope that failed a "product"?

  • The trial judge held that the special indemnity wording of the public liability section of the policy prima facie applied because the rope system was a product as it had been serviced, repaired or handled by Adventure Training. QBE sought to dispute this finding by way of a Notice of Contention. On appeal the trial judge's finding that the ropes course was a product within the meaning of the policy was upheld.

Exclusion clause re "professional advice or service"

  • The Court of Appeal was then asked to consider whether the exclusion clause regarding professional advice or service applied. The trial judge concluded that the work in the nature of routine maintenance, such as what ATS were providing in the present case, did not amount to providing professional advice or service.
  • By way of a Notice of Contention, QBE sought to dispute that finding. It was noted in construing any exclusion, the language of which permits more than one interpretation, the Court must take into account both the contra proferentem principle (where an ambiguous term will be construed against the interests of the party that imposed its inclusion in the contract) and the principle that it would not give business efficacy to the policy if an exclusion clause applied and defeated the commercial purpose of the policy.
  • On appeal it was held that the exclusion was comfortably within the language of the policy and would be interpreted in accordance with the contra proferentem principle.

Exclusion clause re liability clause "by or arising out of advice given for a fee"

  • The Court was then asked to consider whether or not the exclusion clause regarding liability caused "by or arising out of advice given for a fee" applied. · The trial judge held that the exclusion clause was operative because she found the report of ATS in December 2001 counted as "advice given for a fee" and that the liability of ATS arose out of that advice.
  • Campbell JA agreed with the trial judge's finding that it was only because ATS gave its advice that the course was put back in service, with the consequence that the plaintiff sustained injuries.
  • McClellan CJ at CL and Beazley JA disagreed with Campbell JA's finding in respect of this issue and found that the task which ATS was required to carry out could not be described as "advice...given for a fee" as it was doing no more than a general maintenance check in the course of its ordinary business. Insofar as the certification of the course was "safe to use", McClellan CJ at CL held that to the extent the communication by ATS that the course was safe can be characterised as "advice" at all, it was advice so interwoven with and incidental to the insured business of ATS that to exclude it would strike fundamentally at the commercial purpose of the policy: Legal and General Insurance Australia Limited v Eather (1986) 6NSWLR390. Accordingly, it was held by McClellan CJ at CL that the work carried out by ATS at the request of Transfield fell within the normal business of ATS and was not excluded by the terms of its policy of insurance with QBE.

Negligence of Adventure Training

  • By Notice of Contention, QBE, sought to dispute the trial judge's factual finding that ATS had breached its duty of care. QBE argued that ATS could not be held to be negligent for a task that it was not required to perform. QBE's challenge to the finding of negligence on the part of ATS failed on the basis the shrink wrap should have been removed by ATS as part of the inspection process which would have revealed the corrosion underneath.


  • Retreating to the position adopted by the High Court in Brodribb and Stoneman v Lyons [1975] HCA 59, his Honour Campbell JA rejected the notion that employing an independent contractor to carry out extra-hazardous activities imposes on the principal a non-delegable duty of care. His Honour's rejection of the doctrine of extra-hazardous activities is at odds with the High Court's later decision in Burnie Port, where the categories of non-delegable duty were expanded to include the performance of a "dangerous" activity. 14 years since Burnie Port, the High Court has grappled with the concept of non-delegable duties, however with the utmost respect to his Honour Campbell JA, it is our view that there still exists a place for the doctrine of extra-hazardous activities in Australian Law.
  • The word "advice" in an exclusion clause should be interpreted bearing in mind what was said by the High Court in Darlington Futures Limited v Delco Australia Pty Limited (1986) 161 CLR 500:

"The interpretation of an exclusion clause is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning, read in light of the contract as a whole, thereby giving due weight to the context in which the clause appears including the nature and object of the contract, and, where appropriate, construing the clause contra proferentem in case of ambiguity."

  • It is difficult for a public liability insurer to deny indemnity under the professional indemnity exclusion where any advice given is merely ancillary or incidental to the normal business activity of the insured. It is equally difficult to assert that the activity falls outside the business description or occupation of the insured and hence outside the cover provided.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.