Cornelius v Hackney London Borough Council: CA 25 Jul 2002

The applicant sought damages from the council for misfeasance in public office. Protracted litigation had followed his dismissal after he had attempted to bring allegations of misconduct within the authority to the attention of a council committee. He appealed an order striking out his claim.
Held: The distinction between a public officer exercising his power and one abusing his position as a public officer, did not defeat the claim. It was possible that a senior officer of the council could be liable to the claimant for abuse, and also that the Authority could be vicariously liable for such acts. The issues were of fact, and inappropriate for a strike out.
Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Laws
Times 27-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1073
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThree Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
CitedCalveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police HL 1989
Police officers brought an action in negligence against a Chief Constable on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against them had been negligently conducted. They claimed that the investigating officers had negligently failed to conduct the . .
CitedElliott v Chief Constable of Wiltshire and Others ChD 20-Nov-1996
Sir Richard Scott discussed the tort of misfeasance in public office as described in Calveley: ‘I would agree that the tort of misfeasance in public office does require that the misconduct complained of should be sufficiently connected with the . .
See AlsoCornelius v London Borough of Hackney EAT 12-Jan-1996
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.174750

SKX v Manchester City Council: QBD 31 Mar 2021

The claimant, SKX, sought damages against the defendant for personal injuries arising from childhood sexual abuse. The abuse was carried out in 1989 by the Chief Executive of the privately-run children’s home to which the claimant had been sent at the age of 15, whilst in the defendant’s care.
Mr Justice Cavanagh
[2021] EWHC 782 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 April 2021; Ref: scu.660818

JG Williams (T/A Wiltrans International) v Harboard for the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames: QBD 20 Feb 1996

The court considered the liability of an employer for a road traffic offence committed by his employee: ‘I am of the view that it is not appropriate to think in terms simply of basing this conviction on vicarious liability. That is a concept which is rarely invoked in the consideration of offences of this character and it is quite clear from the line of authority that the correct approach is to consider whether there is a user of the vehicle by either the driver or the owner of the vehicle or both.’
Otton LJ, Newman J
Unreported 20 February 1996
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLondon Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v London Concrete Ltd Admn 13-Dec-2001
The respondent company was acquitted after its vehicle, exceeding the maximum weight, was driven on a restricted street in contravention of the regulations. No unrestricted street allowed access to the destination. The delivery was on the company’s . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 April 2021; Ref: scu.183473

Lloyd v Jagpal and Another: ChD 21 Jul 2009

The claimant said that the defendant had, when transferring matters to a new phone bought from his employer the second defendant, taken copies of images which had been sold on to newspapers. The second defendant now sought summary dismissal of the claim against it saying that it was not vicariously liable for his torts.
Held: Substantial sums had already been spent in this matter, and it would be wholly inappropriate to grant the application: ‘The statement of case discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, it is not an abuse of process and the images were provided immediately upon request.’
Kitchin J
[2009] EWHC 1977 (Ch)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1984
England and Wales

Updated: 02 April 2021; Ref: scu.375131

Monks v Warwick District Council: QBD 7 May 2009

The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of a statement made by one of its planning officers.
Held: A source or contributor cannot be sued for a defamatory meaning which only arises from part of the media publication to which he has contributed.
Where a contributor’s words are included in a publication, and a claimant seeks to sue the contributor for publication of the article, the quote cannot be read in isolation to produce a more injurious meaning than the publication as a whole
Sharp DBE J
[2009] EWHC 959 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedEconomou v De Freitas QBD 27-Jul-2016
Failed action for defamation on rape allegations
The claimant had been accused by the defendant’s daughter of rape. He was never charged but sought to prosecute her alleging intent to pervert the course of justice. She later killed herself. The defendant sought to have the inquest extended to . .
CitedTurley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 March 2021; Ref: scu.346750

Ward v Scotrail Railways Limited: SCS 27 Nov 1998

The claimant sought damages from the defender, saying that a co-worker had sexually harrassed her. The behaviour continued after she made a complaint to her employer.
Held: It was conceded that the employee’s conduct was not such as to attract a vicarious liability, but in the circumstances the employee was indulging in an unrelated and independent venture of his own.
Lord Reed
[1998] ScotCS 81, 1999 SC 255
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
CitedKhorasandjian v Bush CA 16-Feb-1993
The plaintiff was an eighteen year old girl who had had a friendship with the defendant, aged 28. The friendship broke down and the plaintiff said she would have no more to do with him, but the defendant did not accept this. There were many . .
CitedWalker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .

Cited by:
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.169748

Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: SC 18 Oct 2017

The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care with accompanying vicarious liability?
Held: The appeal succeeded (Lord Hughes dissenting). The local authority was vicariously liable for the torts committed by the foster parents in this case. However, the proposition that a local authority is under a duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken for the safety of children in care, while they are in the care and control of foster parents, is too broad, and that the responsibility with which it fixes local authorities is too demanding.
Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes
[2017] UKSC 60, [2018] PIQR P4, [2017] PTSR 1382, [2018] AC 355, [2017] 3 WLR 1000, [2018] 1 FLR 329, (2017) 20 CCL Rep 417, [2018] 1 All ER 1, UKSC 2016/0004
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC Video 20170208 am, SC Video 20170208 pm, SC Video 20170209 pm, SC Video 20170209 am
Children and Young Persons Act 1969, Child Care Act 1980, Boarding-Out of Children Regulations 1955
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedKLB v British Columbia 2-Oct-2003
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Torts – Liability – Intentional torts – Abuse of children by foster parents – Whether government can be held liable for harm children suffered in foster care – Whether government . .
CitedThe Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
CitedWoodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Appeal fromNA v Nottinghamshire County Council QBD 2-Dec-2014
The claimant said that as a child the defendant had failed in its duty to protect her from her abusive mother and later from foster parents.
Held: Males J, dealt with the issues of liability and limitation, leaving issues concerning causation . .
At CANA v Nottinghamshire County Council CA 12-Nov-2015
Appeal against finding that a local authority was not responsible for the sexual abuse of the appellant whilst with foster carers as a child.
Held: As to whether the duty as non-delegable, such a duty must relate to a function which the local . .
Removal of AnonymityArmes v Nottinghamshire County Council QBD 15-Nov-2016
Application to set aside anonymity order granted in earlier proceedings alleging sexual abuse. . .
CitedNew South Wales v Lepore 6-Feb-2003
Austlii (High Court of Australia) 1. Appeal allowed in part
2. Paragraph 2 of the order of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales made on 23 April 2001 set aside, and in its place, order that the judgment . .
CitedCox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .
CitedS v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1985
The court was asked whether local authorities are vicariously liable for torts committed by foster parents against children placed with them while in care.
Held: The claim was rejected. The critical question was whether the foster parents were . .
CitedCarmarthenshire County Council v Lewis HL 17-Feb-1955
The House considered the unexplained fact that in the temporary absence of the teacher (who, on the evidence, was not negligent) it was possible for a child of four to wander from the school premises onto the highway, through a gate which was either . .
CitedPerry and Another v Harris (A Minor) CA 31-Jul-2008
The defendant had organised a children’s party. The claimant (11) was injured when a bigger boy was allowed to use the bouncy castle at the same time. The defendants appealed the award of damages.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The relevant . .
CitedMorris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd CA 1965
The plaintiff took her mink stole to the defendants for cleaning. An employee received and stole the fur. The judge had held that the defendants were not liable because the theft was not committed in the course of employment.
Held: The . .
CitedPort Swettenham Authority v T W Wu and Co (M) Sdn Bhd PC 19-Jun-1978
A gratuitous bailee assumes a duty to take reasonable care of the chattel: ‘This standard, although high, may be a less exacting standard than that which the common law requires of a bailee for reward [but] the line between the two standards is a . .
CitedMyton v Woods CA 1980
A claim was made against a local education authority for the negligence of a taxi firm employed by the authority to drive children to and from school.
Held: The claim failed. The authority had no statutory duty to transport children, but only . .
CitedSurtees v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames CA 27-Mar-1991
Because children can injure themselves in so many ways, someone caring for them is not universally liable for injury to a child in their care.
A duty owed in respect of a parent’s own child may be lower. . .
CitedJGE v The English Province of Our Lady of Charity and Another QBD 8-Nov-2011
The court was asked as a preliminary issue who should be the defendant where a claim was made of rape and other assaults by a priest who was a member of the diocese of the second defendant, but employed by the first defendant school. . .
CitedBarrett v London Borough of Enfield HL 17-Jun-1999
The claimant had spent his childhood in foster care, and now claimed damages against a local authority for decisions made and not made during that period. The judge’s decision to strike out the claim had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.597257

Myton v Woods: CA 1980

A claim was made against a local education authority for the negligence of a taxi firm employed by the authority to drive children to and from school.
Held: The claim failed. The authority had no statutory duty to transport children, but only to arrange and pay for it.
Lord Denning MR said that the authority was not liable for an independent contractor ‘except he delegates to the contractor the very duty which he himself has to fulfil’.
Lord Denning MR
(1980) 79 LGR 28
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWoodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
CitedArmes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 March 2021; Ref: scu.645790

S v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 1985

The court was asked whether local authorities are vicariously liable for torts committed by foster parents against children placed with them while in care.
Held: The claim was rejected. The critical question was whether the foster parents were acting as the agents of the local authority. The statutory scheme was ‘entirely inconsistent with the notion that the foster parents are in any way the agents of the local authority in carrying out their duties’. Vicarious liability was generally confined to particular legal relationships, such as employment and agency.
Oliver LJ, Balcombe LJ
[1985] 1 WLR 1150
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedArmes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 March 2021; Ref: scu.645792

JGE v The English Province of Our Lady of Charity and Another: QBD 8 Nov 2011

The court was asked as a preliminary issue who should be the defendant where a claim was made of rape and other assaults by a priest who was a member of the diocese of the second defendant, but employed by the first defendant school.
MacDuff J
[2011] EWHC 2871 (QB), [2012] 2 WLR 709, [2012] 1 All ER 723, [2012] PTSR 633, [2012] PIQR P5, [2012] IRLR 301, [2013] QB 722
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromJGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust CA 12-Jul-2012
The claimant suffered physical and serious sexual abuse whilst a child at a children’s home run by the defendant. A parish priest committed some of the abuse, and she claimed that the defendants were vicariously liable. They denied such liability. . .
At first instanceThe Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
CitedArmes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 March 2021; Ref: scu.448162

NA v Nottinghamshire County Council: CA 12 Nov 2015

Appeal against finding that a local authority was not responsible for the sexual abuse of the appellant whilst with foster carers as a child.
Held: As to whether the duty as non-delegable, such a duty must relate to a function which the local authority had assumed a duty to perform. Fostering was not a function which the local authority could perform: it must be entrusted to others. By placing the child with foster parents, the local authority discharged rather than delegated their duty under section 21 of the 1980 Act to provide accommodation and maintenance for a child in their care
In relation to vicarious liability, Tomlinson LJ considered that the local authority did not exercise sufficient control over the foster parents for vicarious liability to arise. The provision of family life could not be part of the activity of the local authority or of the enterprise upon which they were engaged, because inherent in it was a complete absence of external control over day to day family routine. The control retained by the local authority was at the ‘higher or macro level’, as opposed to ‘micro-management of the day to day family environment’. It was therefore ‘irrelevant to the risk of abuse occurring during the unregulated course of life in the foster home’.
Black LJ also rejected the imposition of vicarious liability, for reasons similar to those of Tomlinson LJ.
Burnett LJ agreed with both judgments as to vicarious liability.
Burnett LJ considered that the relevant duty was the duty of the local authority to care for the child: to promote her welfare and to protect her from harm, so far as reasonably practicable. If, applying the principles summarised in the Christian Brothers case, there was no vicarious liability for an assault upon a child in care, then in his view the common law should not impose liability via the route of a non-delegable duty. He also doubted whether a claim for breach of a non-delegable duty could arise in consequence of an intentional wrong
Black LJ broadly agreed with the judge. The local authority delegated to the foster parents the obligation to care for the claimant as a parent or guardian would, which was an integral part of the positive duty which they had assumed towards her. Like the judge, however, she also considered that it would not be fair, just or reasonable to impose a non-delegable duty on the local authority. In that regard, in addition to the resource implications of the imposition of strict liability for torts committed by foster parents, she also emphasised the risk that local authorities would be reluctant to place children in their care with foster parents, or with their own parents, if a non-delegable duty were imposed. Like Burnett LJ, she noted that the duties of local authorities were assimilated by section 10(2) of the 1980 Act to those of parents, and observed that parents were not subject to a non-delegable duty. Unlike Burnett LJ, she did not treat the absence of vicarious liability as bearing on the question whether there was a non-delegable duty, and she questioned the idea that a non-delegable duty could not be breached by deliberate wrongdoing
Black, Tomlinson, Burnett LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1139, [2016] 2 WLR 1455, [2015] WLR(D) 457, [2016] PTSR 580, [2016] Fam Law 171, [2016] QB 739, [2016] 1 FCR 419, [2016] 2 FLR 1050
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromNA v Nottinghamshire County Council QBD 2-Dec-2014
The claimant said that as a child the defendant had failed in its duty to protect her from her abusive mother and later from foster parents.
Held: Males J, dealt with the issues of liability and limitation, leaving issues concerning causation . .
CitedNew South Wales v Lepore 6-Feb-2003
Austlii (High Court of Australia) 1. Appeal allowed in part
2. Paragraph 2 of the order of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales made on 23 April 2001 set aside, and in its place, order that the judgment . .
CitedWoodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .

Cited by:
See AlsoArmes v Nottinghamshire County Council QBD 15-Nov-2016
Application to set aside anonymity order granted in earlier proceedings alleging sexual abuse. . .
At CAArmes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 March 2021; Ref: scu.554610

Morris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd: CA 1965

The plaintiff took her mink stole to the defendants for cleaning. An employee received and stole the fur. The judge had held that the defendants were not liable because the theft was not committed in the course of employment.
Held: The defendants were liable. Bailment includes as an element an assumption of responsibility by the bailee to keep the goods safe, that is to say to take reasonable care of the goods. In a bailment for reward the duty was non-delegable.
The employee had converted the fur in the course of his employment. Though the authorities were not straightforward, he had not commiteed the act while ‘on a frolic of his own’.
Diplock LJ said: ‘If the principle laid down in Lloyd v Grace, Smith and Co [1912] AC 716 is applied to the facts of the present case, the defendants cannot in my view escape liability for the conversion of the plaintiff’s fur by their servant Morrissey. They accepted the fur as bailees for reward in order to clean it. They put Morrissey as their agent in their place to clean the fur and to take charge of it while doing so. The manner in which he conducted himself in doing that work was to convert it. What he was doing, albeit dishonestly, he was doing in the scope or course of his employment in the technical sense of that infelicitous but time-honoured phrase. The defendants as his masters are responsible for his tortious act.’ and
‘ If the bailee in the present case had been a natural person and had converted the plaintiff’s fur by stealing it himself, no one would have argued that he was not liable to her for its loss. But the defendant bailees are a corporate person. They could not perform their duties to the plaintiffs to take reasonable care of the fur and not to convert it otherwise than vicariously by natural persons acting as their servants or agents. It was one of their servants to whom they had entrusted the care and custody of the fur for the purpose of doing work upon it who converted it by stealing it. Why should they not be vicariously liable for this breach of their duty by the vicar whom they had chosen to perform it? . . ‘ and
‘ . . Nor are we concerned with what would have been the liability of the defendants if the fur had been stolen by another servant of theirs who was not employed by them to clean the fur or to have the care and custody of it. The mere fact that his employment by the defendants gave him the opportunity to steal it would not suffice . . .. I base my decision in this case on the ground that the fur was stolen by the very servant whom the defendants as bailees for reward had employed to take care of it and clean it.’
Salmon LJ said: ‘the defendants are liable for what amounted to negligence and conversion by their servant in the course of his employment’. He emphasised the importance of the thief being the servant through whom the defendants had chosen to discharge their duty to take reasonable care of the fur.’ A bailee for reward is not answerable for a theft by any of his servants but only for a theft by such of them as are deputed by him to discharge some part of his duty of taking reasonable care . . So in this case, if someone employed by the defendants in another depot had broken in and stolen the fur, the defendants would not have been liable. Similarly . . if a clerk employed in the same depot had seized the opportunity of entering the room where the fur was kept and had stolen it, the defendants would not have been liable . .’
Lord Denning said: ‘Once a man has taken charge of goods as a bailee for reward, it is his duty to take reasonable care to keep them safe: and he cannot escape that duty by delegating it to his servant. If the goods are lost or damaged, whilst they are in his possession, he is liable unless he can show – and the burden is on him to show – that the loss or damage occurred without any neglect or default or misconduct of himself or of any of the servants to whom he delegated his duty.’
Diplock LJ, Salmon LJ, Lord Denning MR
[1966] 1 QB 716, [1965] 3 WLR 276, [1965] 2 Lloyds Rep 63, [1965] 2 All ER 725
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLloyd v Grace, Smith and Co HL 1912
Mrs Lloyd delivered the title deeds of her cottages at Ellesmere Port to the solicitors’ managing clerk, who defrauded her.
Held: Vicarious liability can extend to fraudulent acts or omissions if those were carried out in the course of the . .
No longer good lawCheshire v Bailey CA 1905
A silversmith hired a coach and coachman from the defendants in order to show his wares to customers around London. But the coachman entered into a conspiracy with others to steal the silver. Held The Court dismissed the claim for damages against . .

Cited by:
CitedDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
CitedDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
CitedFrans Maas (Uk) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd ComC 30-Jun-2004
A large volume of mobile phones were stolen from a warehouse. The owner claimed damages from the bailee. The defendant said that standard terms applied limiting their responsibility to value calculated by weight.
Held: There was a bailment . .
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
ApprovedPort Swettenham Authority v T W Wu and Co (M) Sdn Bhd PC 19-Jun-1978
A gratuitous bailee assumes a duty to take reasonable care of the chattel: ‘This standard, although high, may be a less exacting standard than that which the common law requires of a bailee for reward [but] the line between the two standards is a . .
ExplainedPhoto Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd HL 14-Feb-1980
Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses
The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The perils the parties had in mind were fire and theft. A patrol man deliberately lit a fire which burned down the factory. It was an . .
ApprovedGilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty Ltd v York Products Pty Ltd PC 1970
(New South Wales – Australia) The defendants were stevedores who had lost two cases of clocks that they had received as sub-bailees of the shipowners, who in turn owed a duty to deliver them to the plaintiffs under the bills of lading.
Held: . .
CitedMattis v Pollock (T/A Flamingo’s Nightclub) QBD 24-Oct-2002
The claimant sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the defendant.
Held: The responsibility of the nightclub owner for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished by the separation in time and place from . .
CitedThe Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
CitedArmes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 March 2021; Ref: scu.214665

Port Swettenham Authority v T W Wu and Co (M) Sdn Bhd: PC 19 Jun 1978

A gratuitous bailee assumes a duty to take reasonable care of the chattel: ‘This standard, although high, may be a less exacting standard than that which the common law requires of a bailee for reward [but] the line between the two standards is a very fine line, difficult to discern and impossible to define.’
‘When, a bailee puts goods which have been bailed to him in the care of his servants for safe custody, there can be no doubt that the bailee is responsible if the goods are lost through any failure of those servants to take proper care of the goods . . Cheshire v Bailey [1905] 1 KB 237 laid down the startling proposition of law that a master who was under a duty to guard another’s goods was liable if the servant he sent to perform the duty for him performed it so negligently as to enable thieves to steal the goods, but was not liable if that servant joined with the thieves in the very theft. This proposition is clearly contrary to principle and common sense, and to the law: Morris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716,740. Their Lordships agree with the decision in Morris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd and consider that Cheshire v Bailey mis-stated the common law.’
[1979] AC 580, [1978] UKPC 13, [1978] 3 WLR 530, [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 11, [1978] 3 All ER 337
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedMorris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd CA 1965
The plaintiff took her mink stole to the defendants for cleaning. An employee received and stole the fur. The judge had held that the defendants were not liable because the theft was not committed in the course of employment.
Held: The . .

Cited by:
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedYearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust CA 4-Feb-2009
The defendant hospital had custody of sperm samples given by the claimants in the course of fertility treatment. The samples were effectively destroyed when the fridge malfunctioned. Each claimant was undergoing chemotherapy which would prevent them . .
CitedThakrar v The Secretary of State for Justice Misc 31-Dec-2015
County Court sitting at Milton Keynes. The claimant prisoner sought damages saying that his personal property had been damaged whilst in the care of the defendant.
Held: The claims succeeded in part. Some damage was deliberate. There was a . .
CitedArmes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 March 2021; Ref: scu.214666

Fennelly v Connex South Eastern Ltd: CA 11 Dec 2000

A ticket inspector, following an altercation with a passenger during which strong words were exchanged, had held the passenger in a headlock. The court had found this to be within the course of his employment so as to make the employer vicariously liable.
Held: The company’s appeal failed. Buxton LJ said: ‘His job was to deal with the public in relation to tickets and to interfere with their progress if they did not produce such a ticket; in other words to deal with the public in that way, none of that was Mr Sparrow able to do without the authority of his employer. His employer was not able to do that, or to have Mr Sparrow do it on his behalf, had he not had statutory authority under the Railway Managements Acts. Absent Mr Sparrow’s status as a ticket inspector he would have had no right at all to call after Mr Fennelly and to block him in this way or otherwise to impede his progress. Had an ordinary fellow passenger done what Mr Sparrow did in checking tickets it would have been an assault.
Against that background I consider it artificial to say that just because Mr Fennelly was walking on, what happened next – immediately next – was divorced from what Mr Sparrow was employed to do. The neck lock sprang directly out of the altercation. The altercation was being conducted by Mr Sparrow on behalf of his employer, dealing as he thought appropriate with a passenger who was not reacting as the employer would have wished; it would not have occurred without Mr Sparrow’s power to inspect tickets when he was on his employers’ premises. It is difficult to say in any realistic terms that this was not all one incident. That is underlined by the finding that the judge made about what Mr Sparrow said when he was actually putting Mr Fennelly into the neck lock. When he said, as the judge found and as I have already indicated, words to the effect of ‘I have had enough of this’, he was referring back to the aggravation and obstruction that Mr Fennelly had caused him when he was looking at his ticket.’
Schiemann, Buxton LJJ
[2000] EWCA Civ 5568, [2001] IRLR 186
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCanadian Pacific Railway Co v Lockhart PC 1941
When considering the imposition of vicarious liability, ‘the first consideration is the ascertainment of what the servant is employed to do.’ (Lord Thankerton) and ‘It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for . .
CitedKooragang Investments Pty Ltd v Richardson and Wrench Ltd PC 27-Jul-1981
(New South Wales) An employee of the defendants was authorised to carry out valuations, but he negligently carried out an unauthorised private valuation.
Held: In doing so he was not acting as an employee of the defendant company. The company . .

Cited by:
CitedWeddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd CA 24-Jan-2012
Parties appealed against judgments dismissing their claims of vicarious liability as against their employers after assaults by co-employees.
Held: Appeals were dismissed and allowed according to their facts.
In one case, one employee . .
CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.428032

Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others: CA 26 Oct 2010

Child sexual abuse was alleged by 150 claimants against staff members of a community home with teachers supplied by the defendants. The court had asked whether they had vicarious liability for the acts of their staff, and now whether the board of trustees of the school itself had liability, and whether in the transfer to them under statute, they had liability for claims under the earlier ‘approved school’ (1933 Act) regime.
Held: The transfer was effective to transfer the liabilities even if their nature and extent was not then forseeable. The appeal failed.
Pill, Hughes, Tomlinson LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1106
Bailii
Children Act 1908, Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Children and Young Persons Act 1969
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
CitedLaunchbury v Morgans HL 9-May-1972
The owner of a car appealed against a ruling that she was responsible for injury suffered by the three respondents who had been passengers in the car when it crashed. The owner had not been with them. The care was driven by her husband with her . .
CitedMiller v Jackson CA 6-Apr-1977
The activities of a long established cricket club had been found to be a legal nuisance, because of the number of cricket balls landing in the gardens of neighbouring houses. An injunction had been granted to local householders who complained of . .
CitedBernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica PC 7-Oct-2004
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .

Cited by:
CitedThe Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.425554

Mackay and Another v The Commercial Bank of New Brunswick and Others: PC 14 Mar 1874

(New Brunswick) It may be generally assumed that, in mercantile transactions, principals do not authorise their agents to act fraudulently, frauds are beyond the agent’s authority in the narrowest sense of which the expression admits; but that so narrow a sense would be opposed to justice and so a wider construction had been put on the words, and that it was difficult to define how far it went.
Sir Montague Smith
[1874] UKPC 20
Bailii
Canada
Cited by:
CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 February 2021; Ref: scu.418905

Maga v The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church: QBD 22 Apr 2009

There was a sufficiently close connection between the employment of a priest at the church and the abuse which he inflicted on the claimant to render it fair and just to impose vicarious liability for the abuse on his employer, the Archdiocese.
Jack J
[2009] EWHC 780 (QB), [2010] 1 WLR 1441
Bailii
Cited by:
Appeal fromMaga v The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church CA 16-Mar-2010
maga_birmCA2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after alleging sexual abuse by a catholic priest. The judge had found the church not vicariously liable for the injuries, and that the archdiocese had not been under a duty further to . .
CitedCoulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2011
coulson_NIQBD2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant as editor of a newspaper. On leaving they entered into an agreement which the claimant said required the defendant to pay his legal costs in any action arising regarding his editorship. The defendant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 February 2021; Ref: scu.417129

Tower Boot Company Limited v Jones: CA 11 Dec 1996

An employer’s liability for racial abuse by its employees is wider than its liability under the rules of vicarious liability. The statute created new obligations. Sex and race discrimination legislation seeks to eradicate the ‘very great evil’ of discrimination.
Waite LJ said: ‘a statute is to be construed according to its legislative purpose, with due regard to the result which it is the stated or presumed intention of Parliament to achieve and the means provided for achieving it (‘the purposive construction’) and the second is that words in a statute are to be given their normal meaning according to general use in the English language unless the context indicates that such words have to be given a special or technical meaning as a term of art (‘the linguistic construction’)’ and ‘The application of the phrase will be a question of fact for each industrial tribunal to resolve, in the light of the circumstances presented to it, with a mind unclouded by any parallels sought to be drawn from the law of vicarious liability in tort.’
Waite LJ
Times 16-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1185, [1997] ICR 254, [1997] IRLR 168, [1997] 2 All ER 406,
Bailii
Race Relations Act 1976 32(1) 33
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromTower Boot Company Ltd v Jones EAT 27-Mar-1995
The company appealed against a finding of race discrimination.
Held: As a matter of law the concept of vicarious liability provided for in Section 41(1) of the Act, identical to that under Section 32(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976. . .

Cited by:
Cited1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton EAT 2-Dec-2003
The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act.
Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not . .
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
CitedAnyanwu and Another v South Bank Student Union and Another HL 24-May-2001
The university had imposed a new constitution on its students union, which resulted in the dismissal of the claimant. He sought to assert racial discrimination.
Held: The concept of ‘aiding’ somebody in committing discriminatory behaviour . .
CitedBNP Paribas v A Mezzotero EAT 30-Mar-2004
EAT Appeal from ET’s decision, at directions hearing, permitting evidence to be adduced, at the forthcoming hearing of a direct sex discrimination and victimisation complaint, of the Applicant’s allegation that, . .
CitedClark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .
CitedAB v CD EAT 13-Nov-1997
The claimant had been a cook. A poster was put up at work redrawn to show her in a sexually suggestive pose. The court now considered an appeal agreed by consent by the parties.
Held: Since the case had been heard, the Court of Appeal in Tower . .
CitedChief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School CA 13-Oct-2017
Single Sex Schooling failed to prepare for life
The Chief Inspector appealed from a decision that it was discriminatory under the 2010 Act to educate girls and boys in the same school but under a system providing effective complete separation of the sexes.
Held: The action was . .
CitedBungay and Others v Saini and Others EAT 27-Sep-2011
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION
Vicarious liability
Post employment
The Appellants were members of the board of a Centre. As a result of decisions of the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 February 2021; Ref: scu.141053

Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credits Guarantee Department: HL 19 Feb 1999

The wrong of the servant or agent for which the master or principal is liable is one committed in the case of a servant in the course of his employment, and in the case of an agent in the course of his authority. It is fundamental to the whole approach to vicarious liability that an employer or principal should not be liable for acts of the servant or agent which are not performed within this limitation. The case asks whether, in a joint tort, it is sufficient to make the master liable if the acts of his servant for which he is responsible, do not in themselves amount to a tort but only amount to a tort when linked to other acts which were not performed in the course of the employee’s employment. An employer’s responsibility for his employees acts does not extend to acts which were of themselves within his employment but lawful even if those acts were associated with the unlawful acts of a third party.
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Woolf, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde, Lord Millett
Gazette 10-Mar-1999, Times 19-Feb-1999, [1999] UKHL 9, [2000] 1 AC 486, [1999] 1 All ER 929, [1999] 2 WLR 540
House of Lords, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromGenerale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department CA 23-Jul-1997
The bank claimed that it had been defrauded, and that since an employee of the defendant had taken part in the fraud the defendant was had vicarious liability for his participation even though they knew nothing of it.
Held: Where A becomes . .
CitedLloyd v Grace, Smith and Co HL 1912
Mrs Lloyd delivered the title deeds of her cottages at Ellesmere Port to the solicitors’ managing clerk, who defrauded her.
Held: Vicarious liability can extend to fraudulent acts or omissions if those were carried out in the course of the . .
CitedLumley v Gye 1853
lumley_gye1853
An opera singer (Miss Wagner) and the defendant theatre owner were joint wrongdoers. They had a common design that the opera singer should break her contract with the plaintiff theatre owner, refuse to sing in the plaintiff’s theatre and instead . .
CitedMcGowan and Co v Dyer 1873
Story on Agency states the general rule that the principal is liable to third persons in a civil suit ‘for the frauds, deceits, concealments, misrepresentations, torts, negligences, and other malfeasances or misfeasances, and omissions of duty of . .
CitedLloyd v Grace, Smith and Co HL 1912
Mrs Lloyd delivered the title deeds of her cottages at Ellesmere Port to the solicitors’ managing clerk, who defrauded her.
Held: Vicarious liability can extend to fraudulent acts or omissions if those were carried out in the course of the . .
CitedSmith v Pywell 29-Apr-1959
There is no separate tort of procuring a third person to commit a tort, but the procurer was a joint tortfeasor with the person who actually committed it. . .
CitedJohn Hudson v Oaten CA 19-Jun-1980
The plaintiff sought to avoid the 1828 Act (Lord Tenterden’s Act). Lakeview, had agreed to buy a substantial quantity of oil from them but was never in a position to do so. The plaintiffs sought their loss from the defendant, Mr. Oaten, and not . .
CitedThe Koursk CA 1924
The navigators of two ships had committed two separate torts or one tort in which they were both tortfeasors.
Held: Three situations were identified where A might be jointly liable with B for B’s tortious act. Where A was master and B servant; . .
CitedAmstrad Consumer Electronics Plc v British Phonographic Industry Limited CA 29-Oct-1985
Amstrad sought a declaration that their retailing of equipment with two cassette decks was not unlawful. A declaration was not granted because Amstrad might be guilty of a criminal offence. However in the absence of any evidence that Amstrad was . .
CitedCBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .

Cited by:
CitedDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 February 2021; Ref: scu.80794

Ministry of Defence v Radclyffe: CA 30 Jun 2009

The court held the appellant Ministry liable for a soldier’s injuries incurred when jumping from a high bridge. A senior officer had earlier ‘assumed responsibility to prevent the junior soldiers from taking undue risks of which he was or ought to have been aware’. Sir Anthony May pointed out that the senior officer had been asked if the men might jump, concluding that ‘the very fact that they asked predicates reliance sufficient for a duty of care and their assumption that he had authority to order them not to jump.’
Sir Anthony May P QBD, Hooper, Sullivan LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 635
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGeary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .
CitedReynolds v Strutt and Parker LLP ChD 15-Jul-2011
The defendant had organised a team bonding day, including a cycling event. The claimant employee was severely injured falling from his cycle. He said that the defendant had been engligent in not providing cycling helmets. The circuit hosting company . .
CitedCockbill v Riley QBD 22-Mar-2013
cockbill_rileyQBD2013
The claimant sufferd catastrophic injury diving into a paddling pool at a party held by the defendant for his daughter to celebrate completing her GCSEs.
Held: The claim failed. ‘It was reasonably foreseeable that someone would lose his . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 February 2021; Ref: scu.347295

SO v Hsbc Bank Plc and Another: CA 3 Apr 2009

Etherton LJ held that ultimately the decision as to whether there is vicarious liability ‘is a conclusion of law based on primary facts rather than a simple question of fact’.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Keene, Etherton LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 296, [2009] 1 CLC 503, [2009] Lloyds Rep FC 338
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At ComCHSBC Bank Plc v 5th Avenue Partners Ltd and Others ComC 7-Dec-2007
The claimants sought damages from the defendant bank, saying that they had been induced by a fraudster to pay money into accounts at the bank, and claimed in dishonest assistance. . .
See AlsoHSBC Bank Plc v 5th Avenue Partners Ltd and others ComC 21-Feb-2008
. .
LeaveHSBC Bank Plc v 5th Avenue Partners Ltd and others CA 6-Jun-2008
Renewed application for leave to appeal. . .

Cited by:
CitedReynolds v Strutt and Parker LLP ChD 15-Jul-2011
The defendant had organised a team bonding day, including a cycling event. The claimant employee was severely injured falling from his cycle. He said that the defendant had been engligent in not providing cycling helmets. The circuit hosting company . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 February 2021; Ref: scu.341243

Roe v Ministry of Health: CA 1954

The plaintiff complained that he had developed a spastic paraplegia following a lumbar puncture.
Held: An inference of negligence was rebutted. However the hospital authority was held to be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the professional staff at its hospital who had the care of one of its patients at the material time.
Denning LJ pointed out that questions of duty, causation and remoteness were intimately linked and all directed to the same fundamental question: ‘Is the consequence fairly to be regarded as within the risk?’
Denning LJ, Somervell LJ, Morris LJ
[1954] 2 QB 66, [1954] 2 All ER 131, [1954] 2 WLR 915, [1954] EWCA Civ 7
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedA v Ministry of Defence and another QBD 16-Apr-2003
The claimant’s father a member of the armed forces had been posted to Germany, and his wife, A’s mother had gone with him. A had been born in Germany, but suffered injury at birth through the negligence of the doctor’s appointed by the defendant . .
CitedIman Abouzaid v Mothercare (Uk) Ltd CA 21-Dec-2000
The defendant appealed a finding of liability under the Act. The plaintiff had hurt his eye assisting with a pushchair sold by the defendant. An elastic strap had rebounded into his eye. It was argued that the English Act went wider than the . .
CitedFarraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
CitedBPE Solicitors and Another v Hughes-Holland (In Substitution for Gabriel) SC 22-Mar-2017
The court was asked what damages are recoverable in a case where (i) but for the negligence of a professional adviser his client would not have embarked on some course of action, but (ii) part or all of the loss which he suffered by doing so arose . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.197042

John Hudson v Oaten: CA 19 Jun 1980

The plaintiff sought to avoid the 1828 Act (Lord Tenterden’s Act). Lakeview, had agreed to buy a substantial quantity of oil from them but was never in a position to do so. The plaintiffs sought their loss from the defendant, Mr. Oaten, and not Lakeview.
Held: The mere fact of entering into a contract imports an implied representation of a genuine intention to pay the contract price and, secondly the entry into the contract having been procured by the defendant, he is liable for the representation thus employed. Both propositions are true. The second proposition, while it may be an adequate description of the consequences of procurement, contains in itself no analysis of the grounds upon which the assumed liability rests. Apart from the tort of conspiracy–and there is no question of that in this case–there is no separate tort of procuring as such. A man who procures the commission by another person of a tortious act becomes liable because he then becomes a principal in the commission of the act. It is his tort but once one gets to that it seems to me that the fallacy of Mr. Crawford’s argument becomes apparent. The tort alleged here is the implied false representation of Lakeview’s intention to pay, and when one seeks to fasten that onto the defendant as a principal it is at once clear that it is not, so far as he is concerned, a representation as to his own intention, for he made none. The representation for which he is assumed to be liable is the representation of Lakeview’s intention.
Oliver LJ: ‘Every promisor impliedly represents that he has at the moment of making the promise the intention of fulfilling the obligations that he has undertaken and if it can be shown that no such intention existed in his mind, at that moment he is guilty of a misrepresentation.’
Oliver LJ
Unreported, 19 June 1980
Statute of Frauds (Amendment) Act 1828 6
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGenerale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credits Guarantee Department HL 19-Feb-1999
The wrong of the servant or agent for which the master or principal is liable is one committed in the case of a servant in the course of his employment, and in the case of an agent in the course of his authority. It is fundamental to the whole . .
CitedContex Drouzhba Ltd v Wiseman and Another CA 20-Nov-2007
The defendant was a director of a company. He signed a letter for the company promising to pay for goods ordered. The representation was found to have been made fraudulently because he knew the company was insolvent, and unable to pay. He now . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2021; Ref: scu.183577

Clark v The Chief Constable of Essex Police: QBD 18 Sep 2006

The officer had retired on ill health grounds, and now sought damages from his chief constable saying that the duties imposed on him had been excessive, and had caused his injury by negligence, and that he had been bullied by co-workers and had not been given appropriate support by the defendant.
Held: The allegations of bullying and harassment were made out. A meeting described as a management meeting was in fact clearly a disciplinary one, but proper procedures had not been followed. This level of stress was not properly part of a policeman’s role and the psychological injury followed. The claim of contributory negligence was not supported. The claimant had done what he could to complain of his treatment. Damages were awarded accordingly.
Tugendhat J
[2006] EWHC 2290 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWaters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000
A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal.
Held: . .
CitedSutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
CitedGarrett v Camden London Borough Council CA 16-Mar-2001
The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: ‘Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless . .
CitedRorrison v West Lothian College and Lothian Regional Council OHCS 21-Jul-1999
The pursuer, a nurse, claimed that she suffered psychological injuries as a result of her treatment at work by two superiors.
Held: The court could find nothing in the pleadings: ‘which, if proved, could establish that Andrews and Henning . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 February 2021; Ref: scu.245094

Biffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others: TCC 11 Jan 2008

Ramsey J
[2008] EWHC 6 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBiffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others TCC 19-Sep-2008
Claim for damages after fire occuring during construction of waste plant. . .
See AlsoBiffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others TCC 31-Oct-2008
. .
Appeal fromBiffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others CA 12-Nov-2008
The defendant contracted to build a plant for the claimant. The plant was damaged by a fire caused by the defendant’s independent sub-contractor. The defendant appealed against the finding that it was responsible for the sub-contractor’s failure. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2021; Ref: scu.264013

London County Council v Cattermoles (Garages) Ltd: CA 20 Apr 1953

An employer is vicariously liable for employees’ torts committed in the course of employment, in spite of prohibitions dealing with conduct within its course. The defendants were held liable for the negligence of their servant whilst driving, even though the servant, a garage hand had no driving licence and had been expressly prohibited from driving.
Sir Raymond Evershed MR, Birkett, Romer LJJ
[1953] EWCA Civ 3, [1953] 1 WLR 997, [1953] 2 All ER 582
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 05 February 2021; Ref: scu.262852

McE v Hendron and de La Salle Brothers: SCS 11 Apr 2007

(Opinion of Lord Osborne) The claimant sought damages saying that he had suffered abuse while a pupil at the approved school managed by the respondents. The claim was a test case as there were pending some 150 additional cases where abuse was alleged at the hands of brothers at that school.
Held: There was no basis upon which the allegation of vicarious liability on the part of the Institute could succeed and the claim was accordingly dismissed.
Lord Osborne, Lord Clarke, Lord Marnoch
2007 SCLR 360, [2007] ScotCS CSIH – 27, 2007 GWD 16-301, 2007 SC 556
Bailii, ScotC
Citing:
See AlsoAM v Reverend Joseph Hendron and others OHCS 13-Sep-2005
Serious abuse was said to have been inflicted by monks of the De La Salle order on those in their charge at an approved school in Scotland. The former pupil claimant contended that the SED owed him a non-delegable duty which entitled him to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.251054

North East London Strategic Health Authority v Nassir-Deen: EAT 18 Dec 2006

EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination; Victimisation; Vicarious liability
The Employment Tribunal appear to have found that a non-discriminatory, unreasonable, treatment of the Claimant was prima facie on the grounds of his race. The Employment Tribunal had failed to adequately consider evidence of non-discriminatory factors that may have explained the Respondent’s conduct, as not being discriminatory.
[2006] UKEAT 0114 – 06 – 1812
Bailii
Citing:
CitedDr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 February 2021; Ref: scu.247874

KR and others v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc: CA 3 Nov 2006

The insurer appealed findings of liability under the 1930 Act. Claims had been made for damages for child abuse in a residential home, whom they insured. The home had become insolvent, and the claimants had pursued the insurer.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Liability had been found not directly on vicarious liability for the acts of the individual staff members, but rather on the negligence in the system of running the homes. The court had to look at each allegation of abuse to see whether the exemption in the policy applied: ‘If possible the exception clause should be given its natural meaning. The policy covers bodily injury to persons other than employees caused in the course of business. The exception focuses on injury or damage resulting from a deliberate act or omission of the insured. ‘ The insurer was not liable for the deliberate acts of abuse from the time after the policy successfully excluded such liability.
[2006] EWCA Civ 1454, Times 08-Nov-2006
Bailii
Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 10-Jun-2003
The court considered an extension of the time for claiming damages for personal injuries after the claimants said they had been sexually abused as children in the care of the defendants.
Held: The test to be applied under section 14(2) was . .
CitedA v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
CitedStubbings v Webb and Another HL 10-Feb-1993
Sexual Assault is not an Act of Negligence
In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A . .
CitedWayne Tank and Pump Company Ltd v Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd CA 1973
The court discussed the effect of an exception clause in an insurance policy: ‘The effect of an exception is to save the insurer from liability for a loss which but for the exception would be covered. The effect of the cover is not to impose on the . .
MentionedJ J Lloyd Instruments Limited v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd; The Miss Jay Jay CA 1987
The insurers insured against an adverse sea but not against defective manufacture or design. Both were found to be proximate causes of the loss.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance judge that the owners could claim under the . .
CitedSimon Trotman (By her Mother and Next Friend Irene Trotman) v North Yorkshire County Council CA 14-Jul-1998
The court considered the liability of the respondent for sexual assaults committed by an employee teacher when taking students on school trips.
Held: The Local Authority was not vicariously liable for sexual assault committed by employee . .
MentionedThe Aliza Glazial CA 2002
. .
CitedLennard’s Carrying Company Limited v Asiatic Petroleum Company Limited HL 1915
The House was asked as to when the acts of an individual became those of his employer under section 502 (‘any loss or damage happening without (the ship owner’s) actual fault or privity’).
Held: Viscount Haldane LC said: ‘It must be upon the . .
CitedHL Bolton (Engineering) Co Ltd v TJ Graham and Sons Ltd CA 1957
The landlord asserted that a tenancy should not be renewed and claimed to have held the freehold for more than 5 years.
Held: The Landlord had only become the reversioner to the lease after accepting a surrender of the head lease. The Act . .
CitedMeridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission PC 26-Jun-1995
(New Zealand) The New Zealand statute required a holder of specified investments to give notice of its holding to a regulator as soon as it became aware of its holding. Unbeknown to any others in the company apart from one colleague, its chief . .
CitedTesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass HL 31-Mar-1971
Identification of Company’s Directing Mind
In a prosecution under the 1968 Act, the court discussed how to identify the directing mind and will of a company, and whether employees remained liable when proper instructions had been given to those in charge of a local store.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedBeresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd HL 1938
The forfeiture rule was to be applied in a case involving suicide. An insured may not recover under a policy of insurance in respect of loss intentionally caused by his own criminal or tortious act, however clearly the wording of the policy may . .
CitedEl Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Ltd CA 2-Dec-1993
The court was asked whether, for the purposes of establishing a company’s liability under the knowing receipt head of constructive trust, the knowledge of one of its directors can be treated as having been the knowledge of the company.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 January 2021; Ref: scu.245841

Hutchinson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Another: QBD 27 Jul 2005

The claimant sought damages for assault by a probationary constable. The constable had been called to a drunken party for Sainsbury’s employees.
Held: The claimant had been assaulted. Miss Morgan had introduced herself as a police officer, had threatened the claimant with arrest and had then attempted to carry out the threat or to use excessive force. She was acting in the course of her duties even though off duty. The Commissioner asked the judge to revise his draft judgment challenging the finding that the first defendant had been acting in the course of her police duties. However: ‘the right to indemnity arises because Miss Morgan has incurred costs as a result of carrying out the functions assigned to her by the Commissioner’.
[2005] EWHC 1660 (QB)
Bailii
Police Act 1996 88(1), Police Reform Act 2002 102
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRobinson v Fernsby, Scott-Kilvert CA 19-Dec-2003
The judge had drafted his judgment and sent the drafts to the parties for comment. He then received additional written representations from one party, from which he realised that he had made an error, and issued a corrected judgment which a . .
DistinguishedMakanjuola v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 1990
A plain clothed off duty police officer gained entry to premises by production of his warrant card. He enquired as to the immigration status of the two residents. He told them they were in breach of the immigration regulations, and demanded sexual . .
CitedGravgaard v Aldridge and Brownlee (A Firm) CA 9-Dec-2004
After the court had sent its draft judgment to the parties, counsel on each side had written to the court making fresh submissions.
Held: Contentious matters should only be allowed to be re-opened in very limited circumstances once a draft . .
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedWeir v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 29-Jan-2003
An off duty police officer had borrowed a marked police van without permission to help his girlfriend move house. The claimant appeared to be rummaging through his girlfriend’s belongings. The claimant refused to obey officer who was employed by the . .
CitedBernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica PC 7-Oct-2004
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.229283

Cambridgeshire County Council v Associated Lead Mills Ltd: ChD 22 Jul 2005

The prosecutor appealed dismissal of the charge of driving a heavy commercial vehicle on a road which was subject to a maximum weight restriction in breach of the 1984 Act. The company denied that it had any knowledge of the actual route taken by its driver.
Held: The offence involved use by the employer when he caused or mermitted the use. It was in effect a joint enterprise by the employer and employee.
Kennedy LJ, Walker J
[2005] EWHC 1627 (Admin)
Bailii
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAlphacell Ltd v Woodward HL 3-May-1972
The defendant operated a paper manufacturing plant which involved maintaining tanks of polluting liquid near the river, so that pollution would occur if they overflowed. There were pumps which ought normally to have drawn off the liquid and . .
CitedRoss Hillman v Bond 1974
An employer can be found to be causing or permitting an employee to overload a vehicle when he was acting in the course of his employment even though the employer is unaware of the employee’s exact activities. . .
CitedWest Yorkshire Trading Standards Service v Lex Vehicle Leasing Ltd QBD 9-Feb-1995
It was alleged that the maximum permitted front axle weight of the vehicle in question was exceeded. The court was asked what were the circimstances defing a ‘user’ of a motor vehicle in prosecutions for use of the vehicle.
Held: ‘The . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Jones CA 2000
A company Managing Director had arranged for a dockside crane to be adapted, so that with the jaws of the grab bucket open bags could be attached to hooks fitted within the bucket. Jones was in the hold of a ship loading bags onto the hooks when the . .
CitedVehicle Inspectorate v Nuttall HL 18-Mar-1999
An operator accused of permitting contraventions of the drivers hours need only be shown to have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent contraventions by his drivers. A willful failure to inspect tachograph charts can amount to prima facie . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.229011

Keppel Bus Co v Ahmad: PC 20 May 1974

Singapore – The respondent, the plaintiff was a passenger in a bus belonging to the appellants. They employed as conductor of the bus the second defendant. The conductor treated an elderly lady passenger in a high-handed and rude fashion. The plaintiff remonstrated with him. An altercation followed in which each tried to hit the other. They were separated by the passengers, but the conductor struck the plaintiff in the eye with his ticket punch, causing loss of sight in the eye. The trial judge and the Singapore Court of Appeal held that the bus company was vicariously liable.
Held: The employer was not liable, since the conductor struck the passenger at a time when he was not exercising his responsibility to maintain order on the bus. The conductor’s conduct could not be described as a wrong mode of performing the work which he was expressly or impliedly authorised to do. He could not be described as maintaining order in the bus; if anyone was keeping order in the bus, it was the passengers. The Board rejected the argument that his job could be described as ‘managing the bus’ and that his conduct arose out of his power and duty to do so.
Cross, Kilbrandon LL, Sir Harry Gibbs
[1974] 1 WLR 1082, [1974] UKPC 15, [1974] RTR 504, [1974] 2 All ER 700, 17 KIR 90
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPoland v Parr (John) and Sons CA 1926
A carter, who had handed over his wagon and was going home to his dinner, struck a boy whom he suspected, wrongly but on reasonable grounds, of stealing his master’s property.
Held: The master was responsible. A servant has implied authority, . .

Cited by:
CitedBrown v Robinson and Sentry PC 14-Dec-2004
(Jamaica) The deceased claimant had been shot by a sentry employed by the respondent company. His estate appealed a finding that the sentry was not acting in the course of his employment.
Held: Older authorities had now been replaced by recent . .
CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2021; Ref: scu.220485

Williams v A and W Hemphill Ltd: HL 1966

Against his employers’s instructions a driver of a lorry deviated substantially from his route. On the detour an accident occurred owing to the fault of the driver. The question arose whether the employers of the lorry driver were vicariously liable.
Held: Lord Pearson said: ‘Had the driver in the present case been driving a lorry which was empty or contained nothing of real importance, I think that so substantial a deviation might well have constituted a frolic of his own. The presence of passengers, however, whom the servant is charged qua servant to drive to their ultimate destination makes it impossible (at all events, provided that they are not all parties to the plans for deviation) to say that the deviation is entirely for the servant’s purposes. Their presence and transport is a dominant purpose of the authorised journey, and, although they are transported deviously, continues to play an essential part. It was said in argument that there must be some limits to that contention and that one could not hold that, if the driver had gone to Inverness, he would still be acting on his master’s business. No doubt there are such limits to the argument as common sense may set on the facts of each case. But when there are passengers whom the servants on his master’s behalf has taken aboard for transport to Glasgow, their transport and safety does not cease at a certain stage of the journey to be the master’s business, or part of his enterprise, merely because the servant has for his own purposes chosen some route which is contrary to his instructions. . . . The more dominant are the current obligations of the master’s business in connection with the lorry, the less weight is to be attached to disobedient navigational extravagances of the servant. . . . In weighing up, therefore, the question of degree, whether the admittedly substantial deviation of the vehicle with its passengers and baggage was such as to make the lorry’s progress a frolic of the servant unconnected with or in substitution for the master’s business, the presence of the passengers is a decisive factor against regarding it as a mere frolic of the servant. In the present case the defenders remained liable, in spite of the deviation, for their driver’s negligence.’
Lord Pearson
1966 SC(HL) 31, [1966] UKHL 3
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
CitedKirby v National Coal Board OHCS 1958
The court considered the degree of connection necessary between the act of an employee and his employer’s business to establish liability under the rule respondeat superior: ‘four different types of situation have been envisaged as guides to the . .

Cited by:
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.214664

Weir v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: CA 29 Jan 2003

An off duty police officer had borrowed a marked police van without permission to help his girlfriend move house. The claimant appeared to be rummaging through his girlfriend’s belongings. The claimant refused to obey officer who was employed by the respondent. He was assaulted, and placed in the rear of a police van. He appealed dismissal of his claim against the Chief Constable.
Held: The officer had identified himself as a constable, and was using a police van: ‘when taking hold of Mr Weir, throwing him down the stairs, assaulting him and locking him in the police van saying he was taking him to the police station …PC Dudley was apparently acting as a constable, albeit one who was behaving very badly. It is clearly fair that Mr Weir should recover for the assault and the injuries caused and for the time he was forcibly confined in the van.’ The nature of an officer’s duties meant that the responsibility of a chief constable would be wider than might apply for other employments. Though the officer had acted unlawfully, his behaviour was not so far outside the nature of his work, and the Chief Constable had vicarious liability.
Tuckey, Latham, LJJ, Sir Denis Henry
Times 04-Feb-2003, [2003] ICR 708
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHutchinson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Another QBD 27-Jul-2005
The claimant sought damages for assault by a probationary constable. The constable had been called to a drunken party for Sainsbury’s employees.
Held: The claimant had been assaulted. Miss Morgan had introduced herself as a police officer, had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.178852

Naylor (T/A Mainstreet) v Payling: CA 7 May 2004

The claimant was injured by a door attendant employed as an independent contractor by the defendant.
Held: The defendant’s duty in selecting an independent contractor was limited to assessing the competence of the contractor. The duties of minding the door were not non-delegable, and therefore there was no additional duty to carry insurance against liability. Here the subcontractor employed doormen who were licensed by the local authority, and the club owner had no duty to enquire further save in exceptional circumstances.
Waller, Latham and Neuberger LJJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 560, Times 02-Jun-2004
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and Others CA 24-Jul-2002
The claimant sought damages. She had been injured after the negligent erection of a stand which was known to be potentially hazardous. The contractor was uninsured, and the claimant sought damages from the Hospital which had arranged the fair in its . .
CitedBottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club CA 7-Nov-2003
The claimant was very badly injured at a bonfire organised by the defendants. He had been asked to help with a part of the display, organised by sub-contractors, which exploded as he was filling it.
Held: The nature of the activity to be . .

Cited by:
CitedGlaister and Others v Appelby-In-Westmorland Town Council CA 9-Dec-2009
The claimant was injured when at a horse fair. A loose horse kicked him causing injury. They claimed in negligence against the council for licensing the fair without ensuring that public liability insurance. The Council now appealed agaiinst a . .
CitedGlaister and Others v Appelby-In-Westmorland Town Council CA 9-Dec-2009
The claimant was injured when at a horse fair. A loose horse kicked him causing injury. They claimed in negligence against the council for licensing the fair without ensuring that public liability insurance. The Council now appealed agaiinst a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.196769

Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd: HL 1957

An employer may be civilly responsible for his employee’s breach even though it constitutes a crime, and a skilled employee in general owed a contractual duty of reasonable care to his employer in the performance of his employment. In determining the rights inter se of A and B, the fact that one them is insured is to be disregarded. A term will not be implied into a contract at common law unless it satisfies the requirement of certainty, under ‘the general principle that an implication must be precise and obvious’.
Viscount Simonds said: ‘as a general proposition it has not, I think, been questioned for nearly 200 years that in determining the rights inter se of A and B the fact that one or other of them is insured is to be disregarded’.
Viscount Simonds, Lord Tucker
[1957] 1 All ER 125, [1957] AC 555, [1956] UKHL 6
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromLister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd CA 1956
Where an employer is found vicariously liable for an employee’s actions, they are entitled to recover an indemnity from them, to cover such losses. . .

Cited by:
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
CitedWestminster (Duke of) and others v Guild CA 30-Mar-1983
The landlord brought an action for non-payment of rent. The tenant sought to set off a failure by the landlord to repair the building of which his flat was part and which failure had caused him loss. The landlord said that it had no express duty to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 January 2021; Ref: scu.190003

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board: HL 4 Mar 1942

Vicarious liability applied, where the lighting of a match to light a cigarette and throwing it on the floor while transferring petrol from a lorry to a tank was held to be in the scope of employment.
[1942] AC 509, [1942] UKHL 2
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.188808

Kooragang Investments Pty Ltd v Richardson and Wrench Ltd: PC 27 Jul 1981

(New South Wales) An employee of the defendants was authorised to carry out valuations, but he negligently carried out an unauthorised private valuation.
Held: In doing so he was not acting as an employee of the defendant company. The company was not liable for his wrongful acts. The House rejected the broad proposition that so long as the employee is doing acts of the same kind as those it is within his authority to do, the employer is liable and he is not entitled to show the employee had no authority to do them. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘the underlying principle remains that a servant, even while performing acts of the class which he was authorised, or employed, to do, may so clearly depart from the scope of his employment that his master will not be liable for his wrongful acts.’
Lord Wilberforce
[1982] AC 471, [1981] UKPC 30
Bailii
Commonwealth
Cited by:
CitedJ J Coughlan Ltd v Ruparelia and others CA 21-Jul-2003
The defendant firm of solicitors had acted in a matter involving a fraud. One partner was involved in the fraud. The claimants sought to recover from the partnership.
Held: ‘The issue is not how the transaction ought properly to be described, . .
CitedDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
CitedFennelly v Connex South Eastern Ltd CA 11-Dec-2000
A ticket inspector, following an altercation with a passenger during which strong words were exchanged, had held the passenger in a headlock. The court had found this to be within the course of his employment so as to make the employer vicariously . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.186090

Barings Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others: ChD 11 Jun 2003

Evans-Lombe J expressed an unwillingness to accept any all-embracing test for what may constitute the breaking of the chain of causation, saying: ‘It seems to me that what will constitute such conduct is so fact-sensitive to the facts of any case where the issue arises that it is almost impossible to generalise. If one must do so, I would say that it must be some unreasonable conduct, not necessarily unforeseeable . . a new cause coming in and disturbing the sequence of events . . not necessarily reckless . . which may result from an accumulation of events which in sum have the effect of removing the negligence sued on as a cause . . which accumulation of events may take place over time.’
[2003] EWHC 1319 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .

Cited by:
CitedBorealis Ab v Geogas Trading Sa ComC 9-Nov-2010
The parties had contracted for sale and purchase of butane for processing. It was said to have been contaminated. The parties now disputed the effect on damages for breach including on causation, remoteness, mitigation and quantum.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.183401

Mattis v Pollock (T/A Flamingo’s Nightclub): QBD 24 Oct 2002

The claimant sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the defendant.
Held: The responsibility of the nightclub owner for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished by the separation in time and place from what had happened in the nightclub, and that vicarious liability was therefore established. The owner had chosen to employ the doorman, knowing and approving of his aggressive tendencies, which he had encouraged rather than curbed. The court considered closely the effect of the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall. However, ‘even if it were not necessary to be able to point to some duty owed by Mr. Pollock to Mr. Mattis which was current at the time of Mr. Cranston’s attack, there was not a sufficiently close connection between the employment of Mr. Cranston by Mr. Pollock and the assault on Mr. Mattis for it to be fair and just for Mr. Pollock to be vicariously liable to Mr. Mattis for the consequences of that attack. ‘
Richard Seymour QC J
[2002] EWHC 2177 (QB), [2003] 1 WLR 2158, [2004] 4 All ER 85, [2003] All ER (D) 10, [2004] PIQR P3, [2003] IRLR 603, [2003] ICR 1335
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedRose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .
CitedMorris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd CA 1965
The plaintiff took her mink stole to the defendants for cleaning. An employee received and stole the fur. The judge had held that the defendants were not liable because the theft was not committed in the course of employment.
Held: The . .
CitedHeasmans v Clarity Cleaning Co CA 1987
A contractor was taken on to clean offices and was given keys. A cleaner made expensive international telephone calls.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The contractor was not vicariously liable for his employee’s acts. There had to be shown some . .
CitedDeatons Pty Ltd v Flew 12-Dec-1949
(High Court of Australia). A barmaid employed by the appellant threw first the beer from a glass, and then the glass in a customer’s face causing injury. The company appealed a find of vicarious liability.
Held: The act of the barmaid was not . .
CitedCercato-Gouveia v Kiprianou and Another CA 17-Jul-2001
Application for permission to appeal. Granted. An employer might be vicariously liable to one employee for the acts of another employee to whom he had delegated some of his duties to the claimant employee. . .
CitedWarren v Henlys Ltd 1948
A garage attendant, as an act of personal vengeance, assaulted a customer of the garage. A customer at a petrol station was abused by the attendant as he drove off without paying. The customer then paid. He complained to the police officer he found . .
CitedBalfron Trustees Ltd v Peterson CA 2001
The court analysed in detail the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall and continued: ‘All of these passages emphasise the necessity of identifying the duty or responsibility of the employer to the victim. If such a duty or responsibility exists, the . .

Cited by:
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
CitedWeddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd CA 24-Jan-2012
Parties appealed against judgments dismissing their claims of vicarious liability as against their employers after assaults by co-employees.
Held: Appeals were dismissed and allowed according to their facts.
In one case, one employee . .
CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.178900

Priestley v Fowler: 1837

Priestley was a butcher’s man who was injured when a van overloaded by fellow employees collapsed, injuring him. His lawsuit was founded on the principle of a master’s vicarious liability for his servant’s negligence.
[1837] EngR 202, (1837) 3 M and W 1, (1837) 150 ER 1030
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedFarraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 January 2021; Ref: scu.313319

Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: HL 27 Jul 2000

A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal.
Held: Her claim was arguable. It was possible that the Commissioner owed to her a similar duty as would any other employer by virtue of the section. The protection given to the police against owing a duty of care did not apply here. She was not suing as a member of the public. ‘it is clear, or at the least arguable, that duties analogous to those owed to an employee are owed to officers in the police service’. And ‘If an employer knows that acts being done by employees during their employment may cause physical or mental harm to a particular fellow employee and he does nothing to supervise or prevent such acts, when it is in his power to do so, it is clearly arguable that he may be in breach of his duty to that employee. It seems to me that he may also be in breach of that duty if he can foresee that such acts may happen and, if they do, that physical or mental harm may be caused to an individual.’
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Clyde Lord Hutton Lord Millett
Times 01-Aug-2000, Gazette 12-Oct-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1607, [2000] UKHL 50, [2000] IRLR 720
House of Lords, Bailii
Police Act 1996 88(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
At EATWaters v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis EAT 17-Nov-1994
. .
Appeal fromWaters v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis CA 3-Jul-1997
. .
CitedKnightley v Johns and others CA 27-Mar-1981
There had been an accident in a tunnel, blocking it. The defendant inspector ordered a traffic constable to ride into the tunnel on his motorcycle against the flow of traffic. The constable crashed and sought damages for negligence against the . .
CitedWhite, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
CitedChief Constable of Northumbria v Costello CA 3-Dec-1998
A woman police officer was attacked by a prisoner in a cell. She sought damages for the failure of a senior officer nearby not to come to her aid, and from the chief constable under his vicarious liability.
Held: The chief constable’s appeal . .
CitedVeness v Dyson Bell and Co 25-May-1965
The claimant sought damages against her employer saying they had failed to meet their duty of care to prevent bullying.
Held: The court refused to strike out the claim that ‘[the plaintiff] was so bullied and belittled by her colleagues that . .
CitedElguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another CA 16-Nov-1994
The Court upheld decisions striking out actions for negligence brought by claimants who had been arrested and held in custody during criminal investigations which were later discontinued. The Crown Prosecution Service owes no general duty of care to . .
CitedSpring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others HL 7-Jul-1994
The plaintiff, who worked in financial services, complained of the terms of the reference given by his former employer. Having spoken of his behaviour towards members of the team, it went on: ‘his former superior has further stated he is a man of . .
CitedPetch v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 29-Mar-1993
A former employer has no duty of care regarding the accuracy of information provided to the trustees of a pension fund regarding the work record of that employee. . .
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedWigan Borough Council v Davies EAT 1979
The court considered that an employer owed a duty of care and under the contract of employment to employees to protect them against ill treatment or bullying. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract.
Arnold J said: ‘We do not think that it is . .
CitedWetherall (Bond Street W1) Ltd v Lynn 1978
The court considered a claim of constructive dismissal against a claim by an employee that the employer had failed to meet its duty of care to protect an employee against bullying or ill treatment by other members of staff. If the respondent had not . .

Cited by:
CitedMullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001
The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . .
CitedBanks v Ablex Ltd CA 24-Feb-2005
The claimant appealed denial of her claim for damages for psychological injury. She complained that her employer had failed to prevent her and other female employees being bullied by a co-worker, and they committed a breach of statutory duty in . .
CitedJD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
CitedBrooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 21-Apr-2005
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when they were both attacked and Mr Lawrence killed. He claimed damages for the negligent way the police had dealt with his case, and particularly said that they had failed to assess him as a victim of crime, . .
CitedFrench and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006
The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force.
Held: The claim failed: ‘these claimants have no . .
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
CitedClark v The Chief Constable of Essex Police QBD 18-Sep-2006
The officer had retired on ill health grounds, and now sought damages from his chief constable saying that the duties imposed on him had been excessive, and had caused his injury by negligence, and that he had been bullied by co-workers and had not . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 January 2021; Ref: scu.159084

John Flynn v Robin Thompson and Partners (a Firm): CA 24 Aug 1999

A partner in a firm of solicitors had been accused of two assaults by a lay representative of a claimant against the firm. The first related to an attempt to wrest papers from the claimant, and the second an assault outside the court. They were both wrongly categorised as a claim in vicarious liability. The defendant was a partner, and the liability of the firm lay in the Act. The second assault was clearly outside the scope of Acts within the partnership, and the first did not warrant the proceedings.
Gazette 10-Feb-2000, Times 14-Mar-2000, [1999] EWCA Civ 2106
Bailii
Partnership Act 1890 10
England and Wales

Updated: 02 January 2021; Ref: scu.147021

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust: CA 16 Mar 2005

The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The issue is whether an employer may be vicariously liable under section 3 of the the 1997 Act for harassment in breach of section 1 of the Act committed by one of its employees in the course of his or her employment. It might. Section 3 created a new right for damages including for anxiety falling short of injury to health.
Vicarious liability is legal responsibility imposed on an employer, although he is himself free from blame for a tort committed by his employee in the course of his employment. It has two forms: ‘first liability for an authorised or negligently permitted unlawful act of an employee in the course of employment; and second, liability for an employee’s unauthorised or not negligently permitted unlawful mode of doing an authorised act in the course of employment. ‘ The second mode is qualified by the requirement that the wrongful act must be so closely connected with as to be regarded as a mode however improper of doing it. The courts are freed from the tight, but not always readily applicable, traditional test of ‘in the course of employment’, and applies a ‘test of fairness and justice, turning, in the circumstances of each case, on the sufficiency of the connection between the breach of duty and the employment and/or whether the risk of such breach was one reasonably incidental to it.’ and ‘it is now clear that, in general, an employer may be vicariously liable for a breach of statutory duty imposed, on his employee, though not on him, if it meets the new broader test.’
‘an employed person may have a valid cause of action at common law for victimisation and/or harassment against his employer, as may a third party who is not a fellow employee: 1) by establishing primary liability under the contract of employment and/or under common law principles of negligence for the employer’s failure to protect him against victimisation and/or harassment causing him physical or psychiatric injury. ‘
While stalking may have been the prime mischief at which the 1997 Act was aimed, it was not the only one. The conduct was described in section 7 by reference to its consequences, not by reference to its nature.
‘The thrust of the Act is plain, namely to protect individuals from a course of conduct amounting to harassment, regardless of who causes it. It is not, as Mr Platt suggested, an apt example of ‘What is sauce for the legislative goose should be sauce for interpretative gander’. Why? What possible dictate of policy or logic should protect an employer, whether corporate or not, from primary or secondary liability for the mischief of harassment of individuals at which the 1997 Act is directed?’ An employer may be vicariously liable in civil proceedings for his employee’s unauthorised criminal conduct, even though it could not be vicariously guilty of it in criminal proceedings.
‘ the existence of vicarious liability for any common law or statutory wrong depends on whether, on the facts of the case, it is, by reference to the criteria of ‘close connection’ and/or ‘reasonably incidental risk’, ‘just and reasonable’ to hold the employer vicariously liable. And, for this purpose, the facts of the case have to be looked at in the context of the statute creating the civil offence. Therein lies the court’s control over any attempt at inappropriate extension of the Act to circumstances and fields of activity in which the imposition of vicarious liability would not be ‘just and reasonable’, not the imposition by the courts of a blanket exclusion of vicarious liability in respect of breaches of it regardless of their factual context ‘
May LJ set out the meaning of ‘harassment’: ‘The Act does not attempt to define the type of conduct that is capable of constituting harassment. ‘Harassment’ is, however, a word which has a meaning which is generally understood. It describes conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in s.7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable . . Thus, in my view, although s.7 subsection 2 provides that harassing a person includes causing the person distress, the fact that a person suffers distress is not by itself enough to show that the cause of the distress was harassment. The conduct has also to be calculated, in an objective sense, to cause distress and has to be oppressive and unreasonable. It has to be conduct which the perpetrator knows or ought to know amounts to harassment, and conduct which a reasonable person would think amounted to harassment. What amounts to harassment is, as Lord Phillips said, generally understood.’
Lord Justice Scott Baker (dissenting) :’what is forbidden is a course of conduct rather than a single act. Also, intention is not relevant; the test whether a particular course of conduct amounts to harassment is objective. There are limited exceptions for conduct that could otherwise be described as harassment. The focus of the Act is on the effect of the harassment on the victim. The reaction of the victim is obviously important and this is something that is likely to be peculiarly within the knowledge of the harasser at whose continuing conduct the Act is aimed. ‘ and
‘The 1997 Act is concerned with the effect of harassment on the mind of the victim. Any anxiety caused by the harassment qualifies for an award of damages. This is in sharp distinction to stress at work claims where the threshold for an award is identifiable psychiatric injury, which has to be foreseeable injury following from a breach of duty on the part of the employer. Statutory claims for harassment and common law claims for stress at work will often overlap, but a statutory claim will be much easier for a claimant to establish. ‘
‘the 1997 Act creates a statutory liability that does not overlap with common law negligence as for example the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Nor is it directed to an employment situation as for example the health and safety legislation. It is aimed at unconscionable behaviour essentially by one individual to another. I regard the statutory duty as personal in nature and not one in which, in the event that the prohibited conduct happens to occur in the workplace, the employer is to be treated as standing in the shoes of an employee perpetrator. ‘
Auld, May, Scott-Baker LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 251, Times 21-Mar-2005, [2005] QB 848, [2005] ICR 977, [2005] 2 WLR 1503, [2005] IRLR 340
Bailii
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 1 3
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedImperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell HL 6-Jul-1964
The respondent was employed as a shot firer in a quarry, and was to test the electric wiring connecting explosive charges. Contrary to instructions that testing must be done from a shelter, the respondent and another shot firer carried out a test in . .
CitedThomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Simon Hughes CA 18-Jul-2001
A civilian police worker had reported officers for racist remarks. The newspaper repeatedly printed articles and encouraged correspondence which was racially motivated, to the acute distress of the complainant.
Held: Repeated newspaper stories . .
CitedSharma v Wells and Medico-Legal Investigations Ltd QBD 2003
The court struck out a claim for damages against an employer for harassment under the 1997 Act. . .
CitedPercy v Corporation of Glasgow HL 1922
A pursuer’s averment, in what appeared to be a claim at common law arising out an alleged breach by employees of a Scottish corporation’s bye-laws and regulations, should be allowed to proceed to trial. . .
CitedHarrison v National Coal Board HL 1951
The plaintiff sought damages from his employer after suffering injury when a co-worker fired a shot in the colliery, acting in breach of the regulations.
Held: There was no vicarious liability duty in law on the managers to ensure compliance . .
CitedNicol v National Coal Board SCS 1952
The court considered a claim against his employer after the plaintiff suffered injury after a breach of safety regulations by a co-worker.
Held: Referring to Harrison v NCB: ‘It appears to me that that principle disposes of the argument . .
CitedMatuszczyk v National Coal Board 1953
The pursuer sought damages at common law after being injured by a shot-firing by a co-worker. The pursuer based his case on duties said to be owed to him by the shot-firer at common law. The defenders’ argument was that these duties had been . .
CitedDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Dziurzynski QBD 28-Jun-2002
The defendant was an animal rights protester who had been accused under the Act of harassing the company and its employees.
Held: The act was intended to be used to protect individuals, and not companies. Two incidents were alleged, but no . .
CitedImperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell HL 6-Jul-1964
The respondent was employed as a shot firer in a quarry, and was to test the electric wiring connecting explosive charges. Contrary to instructions that testing must be done from a shelter, the respondent and another shot firer carried out a test in . .
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedNational Coal Board v England HL 1954
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured when a co-worker fired a shot. The employee however had himself coupled the detonator to the cable rather than leaving it to the shotfirer, and had his cimmitted a criminal offence. He had been found . .
Not FollowedDarling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co v Long 1957
(High Court of Australia) An employer was not responsible vicariously for a breach of a duty at common law between one emplyee and another. There could be no vicarious liability on an employer under regulations providing precautions to be observed . .
CitedCanadian Pacific Railway Co v Lockhart PC 1941
When considering the imposition of vicarious liability, ‘the first consideration is the ascertainment of what the servant is employed to do.’ (Lord Thankerton) and ‘It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for . .
CitedRacz v Home Office HL 17-Dec-1993
The Home Office can be liable for the actions of prison officers which amounted to an official misfeasance. The principles of vicarious liability apply as much to misfeasance in public office as to other torts involving malice, knowledge or . .
CitedJacobi v Griffiths 17-Jun-1999
(Canadian Supreme Court) The process for determining when a non-authorised act by an employee is so connected to the employer’s enterprise that liability should be imposed involved two steps: 1. Firstly a court should determine whether there are . .
CitedBazley v Curry 17-Jun-1999
(Canadian Supreme Court) The court considerd the doctrine of vicarious liability: ‘The policy purposes underlying the imposition of vicarious liability on employers are served only where the wrong is so connected with the employment that it can be . .
CitedMattis v Pollock (T/A Flamingo’s Nightclub) QBD 24-Oct-2002
The claimant sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the defendant.
Held: The responsibility of the nightclub owner for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished by the separation in time and place from . .
CitedBernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica PC 7-Oct-2004
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .
CitedWaters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000
A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal.
Held: . .
CitedDaiichi UK Ltd and others v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and Others; Asahi Glass UK ltd and others v Same; Eisaai Ltd v Same; Yam,anouchi Pharma UK Ltd and others v Same; Sankyo Pharma UK Ltd and others v Same QBD 13-Oct-2003
The claimants sought injunctions and orders under the act against the respondent in respect of acts of harrassment intended variously to dissuade the companies form engaging in activities disapproved by the respondents.
Held: The Act was not . .
CitedDyer v Munday; Morris v Martin CA 1895
The defendant, a hire purchase furniture dealer, sent his manager to recover back some furniture hired to X and upon which several instalments were unpaid. X had pledged the furniture to his landlord as security for his rent, and the landlord’s wife . .
CitedWong v Parkside Health NHS Trust and Another CA 16-Nov-2001
The claimant had sued her former employer for post-traumatic stress resulting from alleged harassment at her place of work. The claimant appealed against an order refusing damages. The court had held that outside the 1997 Act which was not in force . .
CitedMeridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission PC 26-Jun-1995
(New Zealand) The New Zealand statute required a holder of specified investments to give notice of its holding to a regulator as soon as it became aware of its holding. Unbeknown to any others in the company apart from one colleague, its chief . .
CitedLister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd HL 1957
An employer may be civilly responsible for his employee’s breach even though it constitutes a crime, and a skilled employee in general owed a contractual duty of reasonable care to his employer in the performance of his employment. In determining . .
CitedTesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass HL 31-Mar-1971
Identification of Company’s Directing Mind
In a prosecution under the 1968 Act, the court discussed how to identify the directing mind and will of a company, and whether employees remained liable when proper instructions had been given to those in charge of a local store.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedVeness v Dyson Bell and Co 25-May-1965
The claimant sought damages against her employer saying they had failed to meet their duty of care to prevent bullying.
Held: The court refused to strike out the claim that ‘[the plaintiff] was so bullied and belittled by her colleagues that . .
CitedRose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .
CitedHartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
CitedIlkiw v Samuels CA 1963
The plaintiff was injured by the careless manouvering of a lorry by the defendant’s employee.
Held: When considering the vicarious liability of an employer, the proper approach to the nature of the servant’s employment is a broad one. . .
CitedTower Boot Company Limited v Jones CA 11-Dec-1996
An employer’s liability for racial abuse by its employees is wider than its liability under the rules of vicarious liability. The statute created new obligations. Sex and race discrimination legislation seeks to eradicate the ‘very great evil’ of . .
CitedPetch v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 29-Mar-1993
A former employer has no duty of care regarding the accuracy of information provided to the trustees of a pension fund regarding the work record of that employee. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
CitedHelen Green v DB Group Services (UK) Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2006
The claimant sought damages from her former employers, asserting that workplace bullying and harassment had caused injury to her health. She had had a long term history of depression after being abused as a child, and the evidence was conflicting, . .
CitedRayment v Ministry of Defence QBD 18-Feb-2010
rayment_modQBD2010
The claimant sought damages alleging harassment by officers employed by the defendant. An internal investigation had revealed considerable poor behaviour by the senior officers, and that was followed by hostile behaviour. The defendant had put up . .
CitedWoodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
CitedWoodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .
CitedGerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another QBD 27-Nov-2020
The claimants, a solicitor and his wife, sought damages in harassment and data protection, against a party to proceedings in which he was acting professionally, and against the investigative firm instructed by them. The defendants now requested the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 December 2020; Ref: scu.223580

Birmingham City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Admn 17 Jun 2005

Jenriques J
[2005] EWHC 1405 (Admin)
Bailii
Local Government (Discretionary Payments) Regulations 1996 35(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 December 2020; Ref: scu.230107

Dubai Aluminium Company Ltd v Salaam and Others: QBD 17 Jul 1998

A partner is vicariously liable for the acts of his partner in equity as well as in tort. Where a partner acted as accessory to a breach of trust he acted as a constructive trustee. A settlement of and action on this basis was enforceable in a later claim.
Rix J
Times 04-Sep-1998, [1998] EWHC 1204 (Comm), [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 415
Bailii
Partnership Act 1890 10
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and others CA 7-Apr-2000
The liability of a firm for the wrongful acts of one partner is not limited to tortious acts creating liability in common law, but includes all wrongful acts or omissions, including a knowing assistance in a fraudulent scheme. A solicitor who . .
Times 21-Apr-00, [2000] 3 WLR 910, [2000] EWCA Civ 118, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 168, [2001] QB 113, [2000] PNLR 578, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 497
At First InstanceDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Times 06-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65, [2002] UKHL 48, [2002] 3 WLR 1913, [2003] 2 AC 366, [2003] 1 All ER 97, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 451, [2003] 1 LLR 65, [2003] 1 BCLC 32, [2003] IRLR 608, [2003] 1 CLC 1020, [2003] WTLR 163
See AlsoDubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others ComC 3-Dec-1998
The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, . .
Times 06-Jan-99, [1999] 1 WLR 1964, [1998] EWHC 1202 (Comm), [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 478, [1999] 1 All ER 703, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 1

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.80148

Broom v Morgan: CA 1953

The plaintiff and her husband were employed by the defendant to manage and work in a beer and wine house. The Plaintiff was injured through the negligence of her husband in the course of his employment. In an action by her against the defendant in respect of the injury . .
Held: Where a servant while acting in the scope of his employment negligently harms another the fact that his relationship to the injured person is such that suit cannot be brought against him does not relieve the master from liability. An employer was liable to a person injured by the negligence of his servants, notwithstanding the legal immunity of the servants from action at the suit of the injured party, and, therefore the defendant was liable to the plaintiff, despite the inability of the plaintiff to sue her husband in respect of the injury.
Denning LJ said that the master’s liability for the negligence of his servant is not a vicarious liability but a liability of the master himself going to his failure to see that his work is properly and carefully done. The master’s liability is his own liability and remains on him notwithstanding the immunity of the servants, but even if the master’s liability is a vicarious liability, the husband’s immunity is a mere rule of procedure, and not a rule of substantive law. It is an immunity from suit and not and immunity from duty or liability and so, on that view of the law also, the master would be liable for the negligence of the servant.
Denning LJ
[1953] 1 QB 597
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .
[2016] WLR(D) 110, [2016] UKSC 10, [2016] 2 WLR 806, [2016] IRLR 370, [2016] PIQR P8, [2017] 1 All ER 1, [2016] ICR 470, [2016] AC 660, UKSC 2014/0089

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.606510

MacMillan v Wimpey Offshore Engineers and Constructors Ltd: 1991

1991 SLT 515
Offshore Installations (Operational Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1976
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
[2006] UKHL 34, Times 13-Jul-06, [2006] 4 All ER 395, (2006) 91 BMLR 85, [2006] ICR 1199, [2006] 3 WLR 125, [2007] 1 AC 224, [2006] IRLR 695

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.243289

Ross Hillman v Bond: 1974

An employer can be found to be causing or permitting an employee to overload a vehicle when he was acting in the course of his employment even though the employer is unaware of the employee’s exact activities.
[1974] QB 435
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCambridgeshire County Council v Associated Lead Mills Ltd ChD 22-Jul-2005
The prosecutor appealed dismissal of the charge of driving a heavy commercial vehicle on a road which was subject to a maximum weight restriction in breach of the 1984 Act. The company denied that it had any knowledge of the actual route taken by . .
[2005] EWHC 1627 (Admin)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.229018

Turberville v Stampe: 1698

A master is responsible for all acts done by his servant in the course of his employment, even though he may have given no particular directions.
Holt CJ
(1698) 1 Ld Raym 264, [1697] Carth 425
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .
[2016] WLR(D) 110, [2016] UKSC 10, [2016] 2 WLR 806, [2016] IRLR 370, [2016] PIQR P8, [2017] 1 All ER 1, [2016] ICR 470, [2016] AC 660, UKSC 2014/0089

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.606463

Boson v Sandford and Others: 1629

A shipper of goods sued the ship owner for damage caused by the negligence of the master. Eyre J held that there was no difference between a land carrier and a water carrier, and therefore the owners were under a special liability as carriers for the acts of their servants; but Holt CJ rested his judgment on the broad principle that ‘whoever employs another is answerable for him, and undertakes for his care to all that make use of him’.
Both master and part owners of a ship are liable; but part-owners must be joined. Trespass on the case on a special verdict, the case was, A. loaded goods in good plight on board a ship, which commonly carried goods in safety from Topsham to London, and from London to Topsham, for reasonable freight (the danger of the seas only excepted) ; and ’tis found that these goods were damnify’d otherwise than by the sea ; that the goods were delivered to the master of the ship, that the plaintiff did not know the part-owners ; that the owners had the money agreed for the freight;
and farther, that there were more owners than the now
defendant.
Upon this case three points do arise.
1. Whether the action lay against the owners or against the master.
2. Whether the action be well brought against some of the part-owners only.
3. Admitting it is not, whether it be good nom, it being waved, arid not pleaded in abatement’?
Eyre J, Holt CJ
(1691) 2 Salk 440
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
[2016] WLR(D) 109, [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] ICR 485, [2017] 1 All ER 15, [2016] PIQR P11, [2016] 2 WLR 821, [2016] AC 677, [2016] IRLR 362, UKSC 2014/0087
See AlsoBoson v Sandford and others 1724
. .
[1724] EngR 60, (1724) Comb 116, (1724) 90 ER 377 (B)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.606512

Holliday v National Telephone Company: CA 1899

A passer-by on the highway was injured through the negligence of an independent contractor.
Held: The employer was liable.
A L Smith LJ said: ‘The defence is that the defendants are not liable in respect of the injury sustained by the plaintiff, because it was occasioned by the negligence of an independent contractor for whom they are not responsible. In my opinion, since the decision of the House of Lords in Hughes v. Percival (1883) 8 App. Cas. 443, and that of the Privy Council in Black v. Christchurch Finance Co. [1894] A C 48, it is very difficult for a person who is engaged in the execution of dangerous works near a highway to avoid liability by saying that he has employed an independent contractor, because it is the duty of a person who is causing such works to be executed to see that they are properly carried out so as not to occasion any damage to persons passing by on the highway.’
A L Smith LJ
[1899] 2 QB 392
Cited by:
CitedWoodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
[2013] UKSC 66, [2013] 3 WLR 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 403, UKSC 2012/0093, [2014] 1 AC 537, [2014] ELR 67, [2014] 1 All ER 482

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.516944

Boson v Sandford and others: 1724

[1724] EngR 60, (1724) Comb 116, (1724) 90 ER 377 (B)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoBoson v Sandford and Others 1629
A shipper of goods sued the ship owner for damage caused by the negligence of the master. Eyre J held that there was no difference between a land carrier and a water carrier, and therefore the owners were under a special liability as carriers for . .
(1691) 2 Salk 440

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.389164

Middleton v Fowler and Others: 1795

For the master to be liable the servant’s act had to be within the area of the authority given to him.
Holt CJ
[1795] EngR 2573, (1795) 1 Salk 282, (1795) 91 ER 247 (C)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
[2016] WLR(D) 109, [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] ICR 485, [2017] 1 All ER 15, [2016] PIQR P11, [2016] 2 WLR 821, [2016] AC 677, [2016] IRLR 362, UKSC 2014/0087

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.354918

Sir Robert Wayland’s Case: 1795

Holt CJ said: ‘the master at his peril ought to take care what servant he employs; and it is more reasonable that he should suffer for the cheats of his servant than strangers and tradesmen’.
Holt CJ
[1795] EngR 3131, (1795) 3 Salk 234, (1795) 91 ER 797 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
[2016] WLR(D) 109, [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] ICR 485, [2017] 1 All ER 15, [2016] PIQR P11, [2016] 2 WLR 821, [2016] AC 677, [2016] IRLR 362, UKSC 2014/0087

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.355476

Thomas Duncan, Treasurer To The Trustees Of The Perth And Dundee Turnpike Road v James Findlater: HL 23 Aug 1839

Trustees appointed under a Public Road Act are not responsible for an injury occasioned by the negligence of the men employed in making or repairing the road.
The funds raised by such Act cannot be charged with compensation for such an injury; the persons employed on the road not being in the situation of servants to the trustees.
[1839] EngR 1005, (1839) 6 Cl and Fin 894, (1839) 7 ER 934
Commonlii
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedCox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .
[2016] WLR(D) 110, [2016] UKSC 10, [2016] 2 WLR 806, [2016] IRLR 370, [2016] PIQR P8, [2017] 1 All ER 1, [2016] ICR 470, [2016] AC 660, UKSC 2014/0089

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.311537

Honeywill v Larkin: CA 1934

The plaintiffs wanted photographs inside a cinema on which they had worked, and asked the defendants to take them. The photographer used a chemical flashlight using magnesium which gave off intense heat. The negligent photographer caused a fire. The cinema owner threatened to sue the plaintiffs for the cost of the repairs. On advice, the plaintiffs paid up, and now pursued the photographer’s employers to recover the payment. The defendants said the plaintiffs had no liability to pay the cinema company. Bennett J had held that ‘the work to be done by the defendants for the plaintiffs was not necessarily attended with risk, and that it was work which, as a general rule, would seem to be of quite a harmless nature’, and gave judgment for the defendants.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A person who employs an independent contractor will be liable for the negligence of that independent contractor where the independent contractor is engaged to carry out ‘extra-hazardous or dangerous operations’.
Slesser LJ said: ‘To take the photograph in the cinema with a flashlight was, on the evidence stated above, a dangerous operation in its intrinsic nature, involving the creation of fire and explosion on another person’s premises, that is in the cinema, the property of the cinema company. The appellants, in procuring this work to be performed by their contractors, the respondents, assumed an obligation to the cinema company which was, as we think, absolute, but which was at least an obligation to use reasonable precautions, to see that no damage resulted to the cinema company from these dangerous operations: that obligation they could not delegate by employing the respondents as independent contractors, but they were liable in this regard for the respondents’ acts. For the damage actually caused the appellants were accordingly liable in law to the cinema company, and are entitled to claim and recover from the respondents damages for their breach of contract, or negligence in performing their contract to take the photographs.,br />The learned judge has found for the respondents because he has held (founding himself on the words of Lord Watson in Dalton v. Angus (1881) 6 App. Cas. 740, 831 that the work to be done by the respondents for the appellants ‘was not necessarily attended with risk. It was work which, as a general rule, would seem to be of quite a harmless nature.’ But, with respect, he is ignoring the special rules which apply to extra-hazardous or dangerous operations. Even of these it may be predicated that if carefully and skilfully performed, no harm will follow: as instances of such operations may be given those of removing support from adjoining houses, doing dangerous work on the highway, or creating fire or explosion: hence it may be said, in one sense, that such operations are not necessarily attended with risk. But the rule of liability for independent contractors’ acts attaches to these operations, because they are inherently dangerous, and hence are done at the principal employer’s peril.’
Slesser LJ
[1934] 1 KB 191
Cited by:
RestrictedBiffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others CA 12-Nov-2008
The defendant contracted to build a plant for the claimant. The plant was damaged by a fire caused by the defendant’s independent sub-contractor. The defendant appealed against the finding that it was responsible for the sub-contractor’s failure. . .
[2008] EWCA Civ 1257
CitedWoodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
[2013] UKSC 66, [2013] 3 WLR 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 403, UKSC 2012/0093, [2014] 1 AC 537, [2014] ELR 67, [2014] 1 All ER 482

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.282630

Hern v Nichols: 1700

The plaintiff brought an action on the case for deceit, alleging that he bought several parcels of silk under a fraudulent representation by the defendant’s factor that it was another kind of silk. The factor was operating overseas and there was no evidence of deceit on the part of the defendant personally.
Held: Tthe defendant was nevertheless liable. Sir John Holt discussed the liability of an employer for the acts of his employee: ‘seeing somebody must be a loser by this deceit, it is more reasonable that he that employs and puts a trust and confidence in the deceiver should be a loser, than a stranger.’
Sir John Holt CJ
[1700] 1 Salkeld 289
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .
[1976] 1 WLR 141, [1975] EWCA Civ 5, [1976] 1 All ER 97, [1975] ICR 430
CitedBarwick v English Joint Stock Bank 1867
When considering the vicarious liability of a master for the acts of his servant, no sensible distinction could be drawn between the case of fraud and any other wrong. The general rule was that: ‘the master is answerable for every such wrong of the . .
(1867) LR 2 Ex 259
CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
[2016] WLR(D) 109, [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] ICR 485, [2017] 1 All ER 15, [2016] PIQR P11, [2016] 2 WLR 821, [2016] AC 677, [2016] IRLR 362, UKSC 2014/0087

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.278321

Radley v London Council: 1909

(1909) 109 LT 162
Cited by:

  • Cited – Brown v Robinson and Sentry PC 14-Dec-2004
    (Jamaica) The deceased claimant had been shot by a sentry employed by the respondent company. His estate appealed a finding that the sentry was not acting in the course of his employment.
    Held: Older authorities had now been replaced by recent . .
    [2004] UKPC 56

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 December 2020; Ref: scu.220486

Poland v Parr (John) and Sons: CA 1926

A carter, who had handed over his wagon and was going home to his dinner, struck a boy whom he suspected, wrongly but on reasonable grounds, of stealing his master’s property.
Held: The master was responsible. A servant has implied authority, at least in an emergency, to protect his master’s property.
To fix a master with liability for an unauthorised mode of performing an authorised act, the act must be sufficiently connected with the authorised act as to be a mode of doing it.
Scrutton LJ said: ‘Maybe his action was mistaken and maybe the force he used was excessive; he might have pushed the boy instead of striking him. But that was merely acting in excess of what was necessary in doing an act which he was authorized to do. The excess was not sufficient to take the act out of the class of authorized acts.’
Atkin LJ said: ‘I am of the same opinion. With great respect to the learned judge I think his judgment goes wrong where he says ‘The blot, the failure in this case is that he [Hall] was not then in fact acting in the course of his employment . . nor was he in fact doing an act incidental to it.’ The learned judge took the view that the servant was not doing an authorized act, because he was not doing an act of the class which was expressly authorized, and therefore his act could not be authorized. Bank of New South Wales v. Owston shows that to be an erroneous view. The learned judge has not given enough weight to the consideration that a servant may be impliedly authorized in an emergency to do an act different in kind from the class of acts which he is expressly authorized or employed to do. Any servant is as a general rule authorized to do acts which are for the protection of his master’s property. I say ‘authorized,’ for though there are acts which he is bound to do, and for which therefore his master is responsible, it does not follow that the servant must be bound to do an act in order to make his master responsible for it.’
Scrutton, Atkin LJJ
[1927] 1 KB 236, [1926] All ER 177
Cited by:

  • Cited – Brown v Robinson and Sentry PC 14-Dec-2004
    (Jamaica) The deceased claimant had been shot by a sentry employed by the respondent company. His estate appealed a finding that the sentry was not acting in the course of his employment.
    Held: Older authorities had now been replaced by recent . .
    [2004] UKPC 56
  • Cited – Keppel Bus Co v Ahmad PC 20-May-1974
    Singapore – The respondent, the plaintiff was a passenger in a bus belonging to the appellants. They employed as conductor of the bus the second defendant. The conductor treated an elderly lady passenger in a high-handed and rude fashion. The . .
    [1974] 1 WLR 1082, [1974] UKPC 15, [1974] RTR 504, [1974] 2 All ER 700, 17 KIR 90

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 December 2020; Ref: scu.220484

Meux v Great Eastern Railway Co: 1895

The plaintiff sought damages from the railway company for carelessly damaging his goods even though he did not himself have a contract with the company.
Held: A duty was owed by the railway company towards the goods owner, applying cases which had held that a railway company owed a duty of care towards passengers injured by the carelessness of that company’s employee even though the passenger had bought his ticket from another company. No distinction was drawn between an employee injuring the plaintiff and damaging or losing his property.
[1895] 2 QB 387
Cited by:

  • Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.214711

Central Motors (Glasgow) Ltd v Cessnock Garage and Motor Co: 1925

A night watchman at a garage drove off in a car left there for his own purposes and damaged it.
Held: The garage had delegated to their employee the duty of keeping the car safely secured in the garage and they were liable to the owners of the car for his failure in performance. The Court noted the difficulty which can occur in deciding whether a particular act falls within the ‘purely personal and independent sphere of life and action’ which an employee may enjoy or within the sphere of service: ‘The question is not to be answered merely by applying the test whether the act in itself is one which the servant was employed or ordered or forbidden to do. The employer has to shoulder responsibility on a wider basis; and he may, and often does, become responsible to third parties for acts which he has expressly or impliedly forbidden the servant to do. A servant is not a mere machine continuously directed by his master’s hand, but is a person of independent volition and action, and the employer, when he delegates to him some duty which he himself is under obligation to discharge, must take the risk of the servant’s action being misdirected, when he is, for the time, allowed to be beyond his master’s control. It remains necessary to the master’s responsibility that the servant’s act be one done within the sphere of his service or the scope of his employment, but it may have this character although it consists in doing something which is the very opposite of what the servant has been intended or ordered to do, and which he does for his own private ends. An honest master does not employ or authorise his servant to commit crimes of dishonesty towards third parties; but nevertheless he may incur liability for a crime of dishonesty committed by the servant if it was committed by him within the field of activities which the employment assigned to him, and that although the crime was committed by the servant solely in pursuance of his own private advantage. The servant is a bad servant who has not faithfully served but has betrayed his master; still, quoad the third party injured, his dishonest act may fall to be regarded as an ill way of executing the work which has been assigned to him, and which he has been left with power to do well or ill.’
Lord Cullen, Lord President (Clyde)
1925 SC 796
Scotland
Cited by:

  • Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422
  • Cited – Cox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
    The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .
    [2016] WLR(D) 110, [2016] UKSC 10, [2016] 2 WLR 806, [2016] IRLR 370, [2016] PIQR P8, [2017] 1 All ER 1, [2016] ICR 470, [2016] AC 660, UKSC 2014/0089
  • Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
    The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
    [2016] WLR(D) 109, [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] ICR 485, [2017] 1 All ER 15, [2016] PIQR P11, [2016] 2 WLR 821, [2016] AC 677, [2016] IRLR 362, UKSC 2014/0087

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.214710

Cheshire v Bailey: CA 1905

A silversmith hired a coach and coachman from the defendants in order to show his wares to customers around London. But the coachman entered into a conspiracy with others to steal the silver. Held The Court dismissed the claim for damages against the defendant who grounded himself on the basis that the coachman’s activities had constituted a crime which is clearly outside the scope of his employment. The judgment said: ‘It is a crime committed by a person who in committing it severed his connection with his master, and became a stranger; and, as the circumstances under which it was committed are known, it raises no presumption of negligence in the defendant.’
[1905] 1 KB 237
Cited by:

  • No longer good law – Morris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd CA 1965
    The plaintiff took her mink stole to the defendants for cleaning. An employee received and stole the fur. The judge had held that the defendants were not liable because the theft was not committed in the course of employment.
    Held: The . .
    [1966] 1 QB 716, [1965] 3 WLR 276, [1965] 2 Lloyds Rep 63, [1965] 2 All ER 725

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.214872

Warren v Henlys Ltd: 1948

A garage attendant, as an act of personal vengeance, assaulted a customer of the garage. A customer at a petrol station was abused by the attendant as he drove off without paying. The customer then paid. He complained to the police officer he found about the attendant’s conduct and persuaded the officer to return with him to the petrol station. The officer listened to both men and indicated that he did not think that it was a police matter, whereupon the customer said that he would report the attendant to his employer. The officer was on the point of leaving, when the attendant punched the customer in the face, knocking him to the ground. The customer, who now sued the employer.
Held: The employers were not liable. The act of assault was one of personal revenge, and was outside the scope of his employment. By the time that the assault happened the customer’s business with the petrol station had ended, the petrol had been paid for and the customer had left the premises. When he returned with the police officer it was for the purpose of making a personal complaint about the attendant. The attendant reacted violently to being told that the customer was going to report him to his employer, but there was no basis for holding the employer vicariously liable for that behaviour.
Hilbery J
[1948] 2 All ER 935
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422
  • Cited – Mattis v Pollock (T/A Flamingo’s Nightclub) QBD 24-Oct-2002
    The claimant sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the defendant.
    Held: The responsibility of the nightclub owner for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished by the separation in time and place from . .
    [2002] EWHC 2177 (QB), [2003] 1 WLR 2158, [2004] 4 All ER 85, [2003] All ER (D) 10, [2004] PIQR P3, [2003] IRLR 603, [2003] ICR 1335
  • Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
    The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
    [2016] WLR(D) 109, [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] ICR 485, [2017] 1 All ER 15, [2016] PIQR P11, [2016] 2 WLR 821, [2016] AC 677, [2016] IRLR 362, UKSC 2014/0087

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.214875

Ilkiw v Samuels: CA 1963

The plaintiff was injured by the careless manouvering of a lorry by the defendant’s employee.
Held: When considering the vicarious liability of an employer, the proper approach to the nature of the servant’s employment is a broad one. Referring to nouns such as ‘sphere’ and ‘scope’: ‘As each of these nouns implies the matter must be looked at broadly, not dissecting the servant’s task into its component activities – such as driving, loading, sheeting and the like – by asking: what was the job on which he was engaged for his employer? and answering that question as a jury would.’
As to distinctions between restrictions on the sphere of employment and restrictions on conduct within that sphere of employment: ‘the decision into which of these two classes the prohibition falls seems to me to involve first determining what would have been the sphere, scope, course (all these nouns are used) of the servant’s employment if the prohibition had not been imposed. As each of these nouns implies, the matter must be looked at broadly, not dissecting the servant’s task into its component activities – such as driving, loading, sheeting and the like – by asking: what was the job on which he was engaged for his employer? and answering that question as a jury would.’
Diplock LJ
[1963] 1 WLR 991
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422
  • Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
    The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
    Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
    [2005] EWCA Civ 251, Times 21-Mar-05, [2005] QB 848, [2005] ICR 977, [2005] 2 WLR 1503, [2005] IRLR 340
  • Cited – Rose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
    Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
    Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .
    [1976] 1 WLR 141, [1975] EWCA Civ 5, [1976] 1 All ER 97, [1975] ICR 430
  • Cited – Reynolds v Strutt and Parker LLP ChD 15-Jul-2011
    The defendant had organised a team bonding day, including a cycling event. The claimant employee was severely injured falling from his cycle. He said that the defendant had been engligent in not providing cycling helmets. The circuit hosting company . .
    [2011] EWHC 2263 (Ch)
  • Cited – Reynolds v Strutt and Parker LLP ChD 15-Jul-2011
    The defendant had organised a team bonding day, including a cycling event. The claimant employee was severely injured falling from his cycle. He said that the defendant had been engligent in not providing cycling helmets. The circuit hosting company . .
    [2011] EWHC 2263 (Ch)
  • Cited – Cox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
    The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .
    [2016] WLR(D) 110, [2016] UKSC 10, [2016] 2 WLR 806, [2016] IRLR 370, [2016] PIQR P8, [2017] 1 All ER 1, [2016] ICR 470, [2016] AC 660, UKSC 2014/0089

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.214668

Irving and Irving v Post Office: CA 1987

The defendant’s employee disliked his neighbours – the plaintiffs. Whilst working in the sorting office, he wrote racially abusive materials on letters addressed to them. The plaintiffs appealed a finding that the defendant was not liable because the acts were not carried out as part of the employee’s work.
Held: The test was whether the act was merely unauthorised, or whether it was entirely outside the scope of the employment. The employee had not merely done something as a prohibited mode of carrying out his work. The employment merely gave him the opportunity to carry them out.
[1987] IRLR 289
Race Relations Act 1976 1(1)(a) 32(1)
Cited by:

  • Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422
  • Cited – Gravil v Carroll and Another CA 18-Jun-2008
    The claimant was injured by an unlawful punch thrown by the first defendant when they played rugby. He sought damages also against the defendant’s club, and now appealed from a finding that they were not vicariously liable. The defendant player’s . .
    [2008] EWCA Civ 689, Times 22-Jul-08, [2008] ICR 1222, [2008] IRLR 829
  • Applied – AB v CD EAT 13-Nov-1997
    The claimant had been a cook. A poster was put up at work redrawn to show her in a sexually suggestive pose. The court now considered an appeal agreed by consent by the parties.
    Held: Since the case had been heard, the Court of Appeal in Tower . .
    [1997] UKEAT 1272 – 96 – 1311

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.214708

Kirby v National Coal Board: OHCS 1958

The court considered the degree of connection necessary between the act of an employee and his employer’s business to establish liability under the rule respondeat superior: ‘four different types of situation have been envisaged as guides to the solution of this problem. In the first place, if the master actually authorised the particular act, he is clearly liable for it. Secondly, where the workman does some work which he is appointed to do, but does it in a way which his master has not authorised and would not have authorised had he known of it, the master is nevertheless still responsible, for the servant’s act is still within the scope of his employment. On the other hand, in the third place, if the servant is employed only to do a particular work or a particular class of work, and he does something outside the scope of that work, the master is not responsible for any mischief the servant may do to a third party. Lastly, if the servant uses his master’s time or his master’s place or his master’s tools for his own purposes, the master is not responsible. . .’ and ‘It is probably not possible and it is certainly inadvisable to endeavour to lay down an exhaustive definition of what falls within the scope of the employment. Each case must depend to a considerable extent on its particular facts.’
Lord President Clyde
1958 SC 514
Scotland
Cited by:

  • Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422
  • Cited – Williams v A and W Hemphill Ltd HL 1966
    Against his employers’s instructions a driver of a lorry deviated substantially from his route. On the detour an accident occurred owing to the fault of the driver. The question arose whether the employers of the lorry driver were vicariously . .
    1966 SC(HL) 31, [1966] UKHL 3

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.214674

Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew: 12 Dec 1949

(High Court of Australia). A barmaid employed by the appellant threw first the beer from a glass, and then the glass in a customer’s face causing injury. The company appealed a find of vicarious liability.
Held: The act of the barmaid was not expressly authorized, it was not so connected with any authorized act as to be a mode of doing it, but was an independent personal act which was not connected with or incidental in any manner to the work which the barmaid was employed to perform. It was an act of passion and resentment and: ‘an act of passion and resentment done neither in furtherance of the master’s interests nor under his express or implied authority nor as an incident to or in consequence of anything the barmaid was employed to do. It was a spontaneous act of retributive justice. The occasion for administering it and the form it took may have arisen from the fact that she was a barmaid but retribution was not within the course of her employment as a barmaid’
Latham CJ Dixon, McTiernan, Williams and Webb JJ
(1949) 79 CLR 370, [1949] HCA 60
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:

  • Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422
  • Cited – Mattis v Pollock (T/A Flamingo’s Nightclub) QBD 24-Oct-2002
    The claimant sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the defendant.
    Held: The responsibility of the nightclub owner for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished by the separation in time and place from . .
    [2002] EWHC 2177 (QB), [2003] 1 WLR 2158, [2004] 4 All ER 85, [2003] All ER (D) 10, [2004] PIQR P3, [2003] IRLR 603, [2003] ICR 1335
  • Cited – Gravil v Carroll and Another CA 18-Jun-2008
    The claimant was injured by an unlawful punch thrown by the first defendant when they played rugby. He sought damages also against the defendant’s club, and now appealed from a finding that they were not vicariously liable. The defendant player’s . .
    [2008] EWCA Civ 689, Times 22-Jul-08, [2008] ICR 1222, [2008] IRLR 829
  • Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
    The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
    [2016] WLR(D) 109, [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] ICR 485, [2017] 1 All ER 15, [2016] PIQR P11, [2016] 2 WLR 821, [2016] AC 677, [2016] IRLR 362, UKSC 2014/0087

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.214707

Balfron Trustees Ltd v Peterson: CA 2001

The court analysed in detail the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall and continued: ‘All of these passages emphasise the necessity of identifying the duty or responsibility of the employer to the victim. If such a duty or responsibility exists, the employer cannot avoid liability because it was delegated to an employee who failed to comply with his employer’s instructions. Even though the employee’s acts are so heinous that they could not reasonably be said to form part of his obligations vis a vis his employer, they are treated as within the scope of his employment vis a vis the victim, since he was employed to discharge the employer’s duty to the victim. If this analysis is right, then the first issue to be determined is whether or not the employer owed a duty to the victim/claimant. This is, no doubt, an area in which there is room for development (cf White v. Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 in relation to negligence). Whether or not a duty of care of the employer to the victim is involved, there must be some form of responsibility towards the victim. Once there is, the employer cannot escape his obligations by delegating to an employee.’
Laddie J, Dyson LJ
[2001] IRLR 758
England and Wales
Citing:

  • Considered – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422

Cited by:

  • Cited – Mattis v Pollock (T/A Flamingo’s Nightclub) QBD 24-Oct-2002
    The claimant sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the defendant.
    Held: The responsibility of the nightclub owner for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished by the separation in time and place from . .
    [2002] EWHC 2177 (QB), [2003] 1 WLR 2158, [2004] 4 All ER 85, [2003] All ER (D) 10, [2004] PIQR P3, [2003] IRLR 603, [2003] ICR 1335

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.214874

Heasmans v Clarity Cleaning Co: CA 1987

A contractor was taken on to clean offices and was given keys. A cleaner made expensive international telephone calls.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The contractor was not vicariously liable for his employee’s acts. There had to be shown some connection beyond opportunity between the servant’s tortious or criminal act and the circumstances of his employment so that it was committed in the course of the servant’s employment; that the mere fact that the servant’s employment had given him access to the plaintiffs’ premises was not enough. To establish vicarious liability there had to be a nexus other than mere opportunity between the circumstances of employment and the wrongful act.
[1987] ICR 949
Cited by:

  • Cited – Frans Maas (Uk) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd ComC 30-Jun-2004
    A large volume of mobile phones were stolen from a warehouse. The owner claimed damages from the bailee. The defendant said that standard terms applied limiting their responsibility to value calculated by weight.
    Held: There was a bailment . .
    [2004] EWHC 1502 (Comm), [2004] 2 Lloyds Rep 251
  • Cited – Mattis v Pollock (T/A Flamingo’s Nightclub) QBD 24-Oct-2002
    The claimant sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the defendant.
    Held: The responsibility of the nightclub owner for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished by the separation in time and place from . .
    [2002] EWHC 2177 (QB), [2003] 1 WLR 2158, [2004] 4 All ER 85, [2003] All ER (D) 10, [2004] PIQR P3, [2003] IRLR 603, [2003] ICR 1335

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.198910

Bugge v Brown: 1919

When an employee acts ‘so as to be in effect a stranger in relation to his employer with respect to the act he has committed’, his employer does not have vicarious liability for his acts.
Isaacs J
(1919) 26 CLR 110
Cited by:

  • Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
    Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
    A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
    Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
    Times 06-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65, [2002] UKHL 48, [2002] 3 WLR 1913, [2003] 2 AC 366, [2003] 1 All ER 97, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 451, [2003] 1 LLR 65, [2003] 1 BCLC 32, [2003] IRLR 608, [2003] 1 CLC 1020, [2003] WTLR 163

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.193862

Padbury v Holliday and Greenwood Ltd: 1912

A sub-contractor installing some windows left a tool on a window sill. It blew off, and hit the plaintiff, who now sought to recover damages from the main contractor.
Held: This was an act of collateral negligence by an employee of sub-contractors, and the main contractors were not responsible.
[1912] 28 TLR 492
England and Wales

Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.190052

Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department: 1996

The Export Credit Guarantee Department was not liable to the Bank for the loss which the Bank sustained due to the fraud of one of its customers in which an employee was involved.
Longmore J
[1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 200
Cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.183573

Lister and others v Hesley Hall Ltd: CA 7 Oct 1999

Where a residential worker at a children’s home committed sexual abuse on children within his care, the company running the home were not vicariously liable for the acts themselves, but also were not responsible where the worker did not report his own activities but kept them secret. It was unrealistic to try to separate the acts from the secrecy. Neither was within the course of employment. Waller LJ said: ‘The simple point in this case is that if wrongful conduct is outside the course of employment, a failure to prevent or report that wrong conduct cannot be within the scope of employment so as to make the employer vicariously liable for that failure when the employer was not vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct itself.’
Waller LJ
Times 13-Oct-1999
England and Wales
Citing:

Cited by:

  • Appeal from – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422
  • Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
    Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
    A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
    Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
    Times 06-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65, [2002] UKHL 48, [2002] 3 WLR 1913, [2003] 2 AC 366, [2003] 1 All ER 97, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 451, [2003] 1 LLR 65, [2003] 1 BCLC 32, [2003] IRLR 608, [2003] 1 CLC 1020, [2003] WTLR 163

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.83090

Nahhas v Pier House (Cheyne Walk) Management Ltd: 1984

A payment by a third party insurance broker to the daughter of a valued client made for benevolent and commercial reasons did not reduce the claim on the tortfeasor a position which would also, should it have been necessary, have been justified by the ordinary principles of subrogation.
Mr Denis Henry QC
[1984] 1 EGLR 160, (1984) 270 EG 328
England and Wales

Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.538145

Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and others: CA 7 Apr 2000

The liability of a firm for the wrongful acts of one partner is not limited to tortious acts creating liability in common law, but includes all wrongful acts or omissions, including a knowing assistance in a fraudulent scheme. A solicitor who prepares documents for use in a fraudulent scheme, and gives supporting advice, unbeknown to his partners, is acting outside the ordinary course of business, and his partners are not vicariously liable for his acts.
Evans, Aldous LJJ, Turner J
Times 21-Apr-2000, [2000] 3 WLR 910, [2000] EWCA Civ 118, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 168, [2001] QB 113, [2000] PNLR 578, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 497
Bailii
Partnership Act 1890 10
England and Wales
Citing:

  • Appeal from – Dubai Aluminium Company Ltd v Salaam and Others QBD 17-Jul-1998
    A partner is vicariously liable for the acts of his partner in equity as well as in tort. Where a partner acted as accessory to a breach of trust he acted as a constructive trustee. A settlement of and action on this basis was enforceable in a later . .
    Times 04-Sep-98, [1998] EWHC 1204 (Comm), [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 415
  • See Also – Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others ComC 3-Dec-1998
    The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, . .
    Times 06-Jan-99, [1999] 1 WLR 1964, [1998] EWHC 1202 (Comm), [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 478, [1999] 1 All ER 703, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 1

Cited by:

  • Appeal from – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
    Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
    A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
    Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
    Times 06-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65, [2002] UKHL 48, [2002] 3 WLR 1913, [2003] 2 AC 366, [2003] 1 All ER 97, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 451, [2003] 1 LLR 65, [2003] 1 BCLC 32, [2003] IRLR 608, [2003] 1 CLC 1020, [2003] WTLR 163

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.147151

Limpus v The London General Omnibus Company: 1861

[1861] EngR 53, (1861) 2 F and F 640, (1861) 175 ER 1221
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • See Also – Limpus v London General Omnibus Company CExC 23-Jun-1862
    Vicarious Liability – Act on Employers Business
    The driver of an omnibus, seeking to disturb the omnibus of another company, drove his own across the path of another. His employers had furnished him and other drivers with a card saying they ‘must not on any account race with or obstruct another . .
    (1862) 1 H and C 526, [1862] EngR 839, (1862) 158 ER 993

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.283813

Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co v Long: 1957

(High Court of Australia) An employer was not responsible vicariously for a breach of a duty at common law between one emplyee and another. There could be no vicarious liability on an employer under regulations providing precautions to be observed in the loading and unloading of ships (for which the regulations provided only a criminal sanction), or at common law, since the regulations only imposed a penalty for breach on the employee (‘the person in charge’), not upon the employer.
(1957) 97 CLR 36
Cited by:

  • Not Followed – In Re Nelson and Others v Byron Price and Associates Ltd 1981
    (British Columbia Court of Appeal) Craig JA, refused to follow Darling Island to hold that a master could not be held vicariously responsible for the breach of a statutory duty by an employee: ‘In arguing that there should not be vicarious liability . .
    (1981) 122 DLR (3d) 340
  • Not Followed – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
    The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
    Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
    [2005] EWCA Civ 251, Times 21-Mar-05, [2005] QB 848, [2005] ICR 977, [2005] 2 WLR 1503, [2005] IRLR 340
  • Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
    The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
    [2006] UKHL 34, Times 13-Jul-06, [2006] 4 All ER 395, (2006) 91 BMLR 85, [2006] ICR 1199, [2006] 3 WLR 125, [2007] 1 AC 224, [2006] IRLR 695

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2020; Ref: scu.241430

In Re Nelson and Others v Byron Price and Associates Ltd: 1981

(British Columbia Court of Appeal) Craig JA, refused to follow Darling Island to hold that a master could not be held vicariously responsible for the breach of a statutory duty by an employee: ‘In arguing that there should not be vicarious liability in this particular case, counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Australia in Darling Island . . . in which three members of the Court expressed the view that a master could not be held vicariously responsible for the breach of a statutory duty by an employee. I do not necessarily subscribe to this view. If policy is the basis for the vicarious liability of a master at common law because of the culpable conduct of his servant, then, logically, it should be, also, the basis for statutory liability, subject, of course, to the intention of the Legislature as expressed under the relevant legislation.’
Craig JA, Bull JA and McFarlane JA
(1981) 122 DLR (3d) 340
Canada
Citing:

  • Not Followed – Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co v Long 1957
    (High Court of Australia) An employer was not responsible vicariously for a breach of a duty at common law between one emplyee and another. There could be no vicarious liability on an employer under regulations providing precautions to be observed . .
    (1957) 97 CLR 36

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2020; Ref: scu.241431

Adams v War Office: QBD 1955

The fact that the Secretary of State has issued a certificate under section 10(1)(b) is no guarantee that the person in respect of whose case it is issued will be awarded a pension.
[1955] 3 All ER 245, [1955] 1 WLR 1116
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 10(1)(a)(b), Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 10(1)(b)
Cited by:

  • Approved – Bell v Secretary of State for Defence CA 1986
    The deceased was injured serving in the forces in Germany. His injury was worstened after negligent communications between army doctors. The defendant relied upon State Immunity to defend a claim, saying he had issued a certificate that he had died . .
    [1986] QB 322, [1985] 3 All ER 661

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2020; Ref: scu.194881

Beard v London General Omnibus Company: CA 1900

One of the defendant’s conductors, in order to save time, drove the bus quickly around some side streets, negligently injuring the plaintiff, who now sought damages against the bus company.
Held: The plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence that the conductor had been authorised to drive the bus, and therefore failed to establish that they had any resonsibility in negligence for his acts. The action failed.
[1900] 2 QB 53, [1900-3] All ER Rep 112, [1900] LJQB 895, [1900] 83 LT 362, [1900] 48 WR 658, [1900] 16 TLR 499
England and Wales

Updated: 04 December 2020; Ref: scu.188793

Percy v Corporation of Glasgow: HL 1922

A pursuer’s averment, in what appeared to be a claim at common law arising out an alleged breach by employees of a Scottish corporation’s bye-laws and regulations, should be allowed to proceed to trial.
[1922] 2 AC 299
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
    The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
    Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
    [2005] EWCA Civ 251, Times 21-Mar-05, [2005] QB 848, [2005] ICR 977, [2005] 2 WLR 1503, [2005] IRLR 340

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.241426

National Coal Board v England: HL 1954

The plaintiff sought damages after being injured when a co-worker fired a shot. The employee however had himself coupled the detonator to the cable rather than leaving it to the shotfirer, and had his cimmitted a criminal offence. He had been found a quarter responsible, and the NCB sought to rely on the doctrine of ex turpi causa. The trial judge considered a 50% apportionment to be appropriate, on the basis that the plaintiff and the defendant’s employee were equally to blame.
Held: The House accepted that he had been contributorily negligent but rejected the defence of illegality.
The damages should be reduced by only 25%. Lord Reid observed at p 427 that it was not right to disturb the trial judge’s apportionment lightly, but that ‘the difference between holding the parties equally to blame and holding the one’s share of responsibility to be three times that of the other is so substantial that we should give effect to it’.
Lord Oaksey approved Nicol v NCB: ‘I agree with the judgment of Lord Guthrie in Nicol v National Coal Board . . that it cannot be said to be necessarily outside the course of the employment of a workman that he performs his work in a manner which is in breach of a statutory regulation. Here it was within the shot-firer’s employment to fire the shot electrically, but he did it without due care and in breach of the regulation. Unless there is something in the statute which creates the obligation indicating the intention that no action shall be brought a common law in respect of its breach, the ordinary rules of the common law of tort are applicable, including the doctrine respondeat superior.’
Lord Porter said: ‘My Lords, save in one case I cannot find that such a plea has ever been put forward in circumstances similar to these as excusing common law negligence. If it were sound it would be a defence to many actions in which it was not raised and might also be a defence to many claims for compensation. Conceivably it may be a defence in certain cases between the participes criminis, but the argument that it may be a defence between the two persons involved does not support a conclusion that a third party whose servant is one of two involved in disobeying a regulation and so participating in a criminal offence is thereby absolved from liability.’ Applying the Cakebread case, ‘I cannot believe that a breach of a statutory obligation drafted to ensure the adoption of a careful method of working is a ‘turpis causa’ within the meaning of the rule. Indeed, the adage itself is generally applied to a question of contract and I am by no means prepared to concede where concession is not required that it applies also to the case of a tort. This view is, in my opinion, in conformity with the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 which, after enacting that a claim shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of one person where the damage is caused partly by the fault of another, then goes on to define ‘fault’ as meaning ‘negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission . .’.’
Lord Reid said that the 1945 Act worked to disapply the ex turpi doctrine in all forms of tort in favour of apportionment: ‘Reading the appropriate part of this definition back into section 1 makes it provide that where a person suffers damage as the result partly of his own breach of statutory duty which would, apart from this Act, give rise to the defence of contributory negligence his claim shall not be defeated . . [W]hatever the former position may have been, it is now clear that the appellants cannot rely on this defence [viz turpitude].’
Lord Asquith of Bishopstone said: ‘The defendants relied on the maxim ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ as absolving them of liability.
. . The vast majority of cases in which the maxim has been applied have been cases where, there being an illegal agreement between A and B, either seeks to sue the other for its enforcement or for damages for its breach. That, of course, is not this case. Cases where an action in tort has been defeated by the maxim are exceedingly rare. Possibly a party to an illegal prize fight who is damaged in the conflict cannot sue for assault (Boulter v Clark (1747) Bull N.P. 16, See: (1817) Bull N. P.).
. . If two burglars, A and B, agree to open a safe by means of explosives, and A so negligently handles the explosive charge as to injure B, B might find some difficulty in maintaining an action for negligence against A. But if A and B are proceeding to the premises which they intend burglariously to enter, and before they enter them, B picks A’s pocket and steals his watch, I cannot prevail on myself to believe that A could not sue in tort . . The theft is totally unconnected with the burglary.’
Lord Reid, Lord Oaksey, Lord Porter
[1954] AC 403, [1954] 1 All ER 546
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
England and Wales
Citing:

  • Approved – Nicol v National Coal Board SCS 1952
    The court considered a claim against his employer after the plaintiff suffered injury after a breach of safety regulations by a co-worker.
    Held: Referring to Harrison v NCB: ‘It appears to me that that principle disposes of the argument . .
    (1952) 102 LJ 357
  • Cited – Cakebread v Hopping Bros Ltd CA 1947
    Cohen LJ discussed the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, saying: ‘The maxim ex turpi causa is based on public policy, and it seems to me plain on the facts of this case that public policy, far from requiring that this action shall be . .
    [1947] KB 641
  • Cited – Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd HL 25-Jun-1953
    Plaintiff to take own responsibility for damage
    The question was whether the fault of the deceased’s fellow workman, they both having disobeyed their foreman’s instructions, was to be regarded as having contributed to the accident.
    Held: A plaintiff must ‘share in the responsibility for the . .
    [1953] AC 663, [1953] UKHL 4, [1953] 2 All ER 478, [1953] 3 WLR 279

Cited by:

  • Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
    The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
    Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
    [2005] EWCA Civ 251, Times 21-Mar-05, [2005] QB 848, [2005] ICR 977, [2005] 2 WLR 1503, [2005] IRLR 340
  • Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
    The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
    [2006] UKHL 34, Times 13-Jul-06, [2006] 4 All ER 395, (2006) 91 BMLR 85, [2006] ICR 1199, [2006] 3 WLR 125, [2007] 1 AC 224, [2006] IRLR 695
  • Cited – Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 31-Jul-2001
    The police were not under any duty to protect someone who had been arrested from injuring himself in an attempt to escape. The claimant had a history of seeking to avoid capture by jumping from his flat window. On this occasion he injured himself in . .
    Times 09-Aug-01, [2001] EWCA Civ 1249, [2002] 1 WLR 218, [2002] PIQR P10, [2002] 3 All ER 78
  • Cited – Gray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
    The claimant suffered severe psychiatric injured in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section . .
    [2009] UKHL 33, Times 19-Jun-09, [2009] PIQR P22, (2009) 108 BMLR 205, [2009] 4 All ER 81, [2009] 3 WLR 167, [2009] 1 AC 1339
  • Cited – Hounga v Allen and Another SC 30-Jul-2014
    The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging . .
    [2014] UKSC 47, [2014] ICR 847, [2014] Eq LR 559, [2014] 4 All ER 595, [2014] 1 WLR 2889, [2014] IRLR 811, [2014] WLR(D) 353, UKSC 2012/0188
  • Cited – Jackson v Murray and Another SC 18-Feb-2015
    Child not entirely free of responsibility
    The claimant child, left a school bus and stepped out from behind it into the path of the respondent’s car. She appealed against a finding of 70% contributory negligence.
    Held: Her appeal succeeded (Majority, Lord Hodge and Lord Wilson . .
    [2015] RTR 20, [2015] 2 All ER 805, [2015] UKSC 5, 2015 SCLR 235, 2015 Rep LR 42, 2015 GWD 7-141, 2015 SLT 151, UKSC 2014/0070, 2015 SC (UKSC) 105, [2015] PIQR P16

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.241429

Staveley Iron and Chemical Co Ltd v Jones: HL 1956

The court must avoid treating every risky act by an employee due to familiarity with the work or some inattention resulting from noise or strain as contributory negligence: ‘ . . in Factory Act cases the purpose of imposing the absolute obligation is to protect the workmen against those very acts of inattention which are sometimes relied upon as constituting contributory negligence so that too strict a standard would defeat the object of the statute.’ (Lord Tucker) The rule of ‘respondeat superior’ is merely a restatement of the rule ‘qui facit per alium facit per se’. The employee’s wrong is imputed to the employer.
Lord Reid, Lord Tucker
[1956] AC 627
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422
  • Cited – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 11-Feb-1999
    The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
    Times 16-Jul-99, Gazette 11-Aug-99, [1999] 3 WLR 363, [1999] UKHL 35, [2000] 1 AC 360, [1999] 3 All ER 897
  • Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
    The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
    [2006] UKHL 34, Times 13-Jul-06, [2006] 4 All ER 395, (2006) 91 BMLR 85, [2006] ICR 1199, [2006] 3 WLR 125, [2007] 1 AC 224, [2006] IRLR 695

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.214672

Plumb v Cobden Flour Mills Co Ltd: HL 1914

In looking at restrictions by an employer to limit his vicarious liability, the court must distinguish between prohibitions which limit the sphere of employment and those which only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment:’ ‘there are prohibitions which limit the sphere of employment, and prohibitions which only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment’.
Lord Dunedin
[1914] AC 62
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
    A solicitor had been alleged to have dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
    Held: The acts complained of were so close to the . .
    Times 06-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65, [2002] UKHL 48, [2002] 3 WLR 1913, [2003] 2 AC 366, [2003] 1 All ER 97, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 451, [2003] 1 LLR 65, [2003] 1 BCLC 32, [2003] IRLR 608, [2003] 1 CLC 1020, [2003] WTLR 163
  • Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
    A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
    Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
    Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 All ER 769, [2001] 2 FCR 97, (2001) 3 LGLR 49, [2001] NPC 89, [2001] Fam Law 595, [2001] 2 WLR 1311, [2001] IRLR 472, [2001] ICR 665, [2001] Emp LR 819, [2001] 2 FLR 307, [2001] ELR 422
  • Cited – Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Lockhart PC 1941
    When considering the imposition of vicarious liability, ‘the first consideration is the ascertainment of what the servant is employed to do.’ (Lord Thankerton) and ‘It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for . .
    [1942] AC 591, [1941] SCR 278, [1942] All ER 464
  • Cited – Rose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
    Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
    Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .
    [1976] 1 WLR 141, [1975] EWCA Civ 5, [1976] 1 All ER 97, [1975] ICR 430

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.193842

Mitchil v Alestree: 1726

In an action upon the case brought against the defendant, for that he did ride an horse into a place called Lincoln’s Inn Fields, (a place much frequented by the King’s subjects, and unapt for such purposes) for the breaking and taming of him, and that the horse was so unruly, that he broke from the defendant, and ran over the plaintiff, and grievously hurt him, to his damages, andC.
Upon not guilty pleaded, and a verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved by Simpson in arrest of judgment, that here is no cause of action: for it appears by the declaration, that the mischief which happened was against the defendant’s will, and so damnum absque injuria; and then not shewn what right the King’s subjects had to walk there; and if a man digs a pit in a common into which one that has no right to come there, falls in, no action lies in such case.
Curia contra, It was the defendant’s fault, to bring a wild horse into such a place where mischief might probably be done, by reason of the concourse of people. Lately, in this Court an action was brought against a butcher, who had made an ox run from his stall and gored the plaintiff; and this was alledged in the declaration to be in default of penning of him.
Wylde said: ‘If a man hath an unruly horse in his stable, and leaves open the stable-door, whereby the horse goes forth and does mischief; an action lies against the master.’
Twisden: ‘If one hath kept a tame fox, which gets loose and grows wild, he that kept him before shall not answer for the damage the fox doth after he hath lost him, and he hath resumed his wild nature.’
Twisden, Wylde JJ
[1726] EngR 590, (1726) 1 Vent 295, (1726) 86 ER 190 (B)
Commonlii
Cited by:

  • Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012
    The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .
    [2012] EWCA Civ 239, [2013] 3 WLR 853, [2012] ELR 327, [2012] Med LR 419, [2012] PIQR P12, [2012] BLGR 879
  • Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
    The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
    [2009] EWCA Civ 1203, (2010) 11 BMLR 131, [2010] PIQR P7, [2010] Med LR 1

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 December 2020; Ref: scu.379170

Heaton’s Transport (St Helen’s) Ltd v Transport and General Workers’ Union: HL 1972

Injunctions had been granted against the Trades Unions to prevent them undertaking stike action. Proceedings for contempt were brought against the union after blacking had continued, despite the fact that the union through its national and local officers had advised its shop stewards to obey the court order, which advice had been rejected. The House considered the position of shop stewards involved in breaching the injunctions.
Held: The defendant association, once under order from the court to require its shop stewards to desist from the unfair industrial practice of ‘blacking’ container transport firms, had not done everything which it could be expected to do so. The fact that they were agents rather than servants was unimportant. In each case the test to be applied is the same: was the servant or agent acting on behalf of, and within the scope of the authority conferred by, the master or principal? The governor of the prison had been summoned to attend without having been party to the undertaking.
An unincorporated association might be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of one or more of its members.
There can be a contempt if an act intentionally done amounts to a breach of the order: a wilful breach was not the same as, ‘contumacious or insulting behaviour or interference with the administration of justice’.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘The question to be considered is whether the disobedience was ‘wilful’ in accordance with the established meaning of that word in relation to contempt of court by disobedience to an order of the court. It is important to note that there is no question here of contumacious or insulting behaviour or interference with the administration of justice. There has been simply a disobedience to the court’s injunction by the party restrained by the injunction, and the disobedience has been committed by that party through its agents.’
In considering the established meaning of ‘wilful’ for the purposes of the law of contempt, Lord Wilberforce reviewed a number of authorities, in the light of which he said that the statement of the law by Warrington J in Stancomb had acquired high authority: ‘It is also the reasonable view, because the party in whose favour an order has been made is entitled to have it enforced, and also the effective administration of justice normally requires some penalty for disobedience to an order of a court if the disobedience is more than casual or accidental and unintentional’.
Lord Wilberforce
[1973] AC 15, [1972] IRLR 25, [1972] 3 All ER 101
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Godrich and Serwotka v Public and Commercial Services Union and Reamsbottom ChD 31-Jul-2002
    The second defendant had become General Secretary of the first defendant after the amalgamation of two unions. The defendants agreed a compromise as to his term of office. The applicants sought declarations that they were now joint secretary.
    [2002] EWHC 1642 (Ch)
  • Cited – Beggs v Scottish Ministers HL 7-Feb-2007
    The claimant, a serving prisoner, had sought to sue the prison authorities for the conditions in which he was kept. He complained that his correspondence with his lawyers had been unlwafully opened by the prison. Repeatedly, undertakings were given . .
    [2007] UKHL 3, Times 08-Feb-07, (2007) 151 SJLB 258, [2007] 1 WLR 455, 2007 SCLR 287, 2007 SLT 235, 2007 GWD 5-72
  • Cited – The Highland Council v TGWU and Unison EAT 3-Jun-2008
    EAT EQUAL PAY ACT: Equal value

    Equal Pay claims. Whether letters sent to local authority employers by unions prior to coming into force of the statutory grievance procedures met the requirements of regulation . .
    [2008] UKEAT 0048 – 07 – 0306, [2008] IRLR 858, [2008] ICR 1150

  • Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
    Law of vicarious liability is on the move
    Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
    [2012] UKSC 56, UKSC 2010/0230, [2012] WLR(D) 335, [2013] 1 All ER 670, [2013] IRLR 219, [2013] PIQR P6, [2013] ELR 1, [2012] 3 WLR 1319, [2013] 2 AC 1
  • Cited – Jones, Re (Alleged Contempt of Court) FD 21-Aug-2013
    The Solicitor General sought the committal of the respondent for alleged contempt of court. There had been repeated litigation between the respondent and her former husband as to whether the children should live in Spain with the father or in Wales . .
    [2013] EWHC 2579 (Fam), [2014] 1 FLR 852

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 November 2020; Ref: scu.248818