From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1975] 1 WLR 141. A milk roundsman engaged a 13-year-old boy to help him with his round, despite an express prohibition from his employer. When the boy was injured, his parents brought actions in Negligence against the roundsman, and against his employer vicariously (see vicarious liability). The vicarious action failed at first instance, the judge ruling that the roundsman was not acting on his employer's business when he failed to comply with a specific instruction. However, in the Court of Appeal the action succeeded: the roundsman was delivering milk, which was what he was paid to do. Therefore, he was acting in the course of business.