Farraj v King's Healthcare NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 1203
Facts
The appellant (NHS Trust) appealed against a decision that it was liable in a wrongful birth case and the respondent parents (P) cross appealed. When the wife was pregnant, she was advised to undergo DNA testing to detect whether the child would suffer from an inherited blood disorder which P were carriers of. A chorionic villus samples was taken and sent to the trust’s London hospital. After, it was sent to an independent specialist cytogenic laboratory (C) for foetal cells to be cultured. After, the sample was returned to the hospital for testing. The test returned negative. However, when the baby was born it was found to have the disorder. As a result, P sued the trust and C. The judge held both defendants liable. C was liable as it had doubts about the viability of the sample however did not communicate them to the hospital.
Legal Issue
Was the hospital required to check the competent independent laboratory’s work or answer for its failure to communicate concerns about the sample, rather than reasonably relying on the specialist?
Held
The Court of Appeal allowed the hospital trust's appeal and dismissed the parents' cross-appeal. The hospital was entitled, on these facts, to rely on the competent specialist laboratory to communicate any material concern about the sample. The findings did not justify imposing a duty to repeat the laboratory's checks or establish the necessary causal basis for the hospital's alleged failure to inquire. The court also rejected the proposed non-delegable duty in this arrangement. The laboratory's own negligent failure to communicate remained distinct. The decision should not be read as a universal rule that hospitals can escape treatment responsibilities by outsourcing work.
⭐ Legal Principle
Farraj rejected hospital liability for the particular independent laboratory's failure to communicate concerns where reasonable reliance on that specialist was justified. It did not establish a universal exemption for outsourced healthcare; later authority requires careful examination of any non-delegable duty.
Significance
Farraj distinguishes a defendant's own negligence from responsibility for an independent contractor's work. It is important to identify the precise function delegated and what the hospital could reasonably rely on the specialist to do. Woodland later explained non-delegable duties in a different factual setting and limits broad reliance on contractor status alone. Current answers should therefore analyse the patient's relationship and the delegated protective function rather than treat Farraj as a general outsourcing defence.
Common exam questions about this case
Was the laboratory's own negligence the same as hospital negligence?
No. The laboratory had concerns about the sample and failed to communicate them. The hospital's alleged fault was a separate failure to inquire. Liability for that omission required a duty, breach and causal basis concerning the hospital's own conduct, rather than simply importing the laboratory's error.
Why could the hospital rely on the specialist laboratory?
On the facts, the laboratory was a competent independent specialist expected to communicate material problems with its work. The hospital was not automatically required to duplicate those checks. That conclusion depends on the actual arrangement and any information giving the hospital reason to doubt the sample.
Why should Woodland be considered in a current problem?
Woodland examines when a duty requires ensuring that reasonable care is taken even where performance is delegated. It means contractor status alone cannot resolve every case. A modern answer should identify whether the relevant protective function and relationship support a non-delegable duty, while preserving Farraj's particular factual conclusion.