swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Vicarious Liability - From: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and others Times, 21 April 2000; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 497; [2000] 3 WLR 910; [2000] EWCA Civ 118; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 168; [2001] QB 113; [2000] PNLR 578
7 Apr 2000
CA
Evans, Aldous LJJ, Turner J
Company, Legal Professions, Vicarious Liability
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.
Partnership Act 1890 10
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Walker and others v Stones and others Times, 26 September 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 864
19 Jul 2000
CA
Sir Christopher Slade
Company, Legal Professions, Trusts, Equity, Vicarious Liability
Beneficiaries under a trust sought damages from a solicitor trustee, and the firm of which he was a partner. Held: Where a trustee acted in breach of trust in a claimed belief that he was acting in the interests of the beneficiaries, but no reasonable trustee in his place could have that belief, then an allegation against him of dishonesty should proceed. A trusteeship is not part of the normal duties of a partner of a firm, and the firm is not vicariously liable for the acts of a partner in such trusts. The court rejected the 'Robin Hood' test of dishonesty (a person is only regarded as dishonest if he transgresses his own standard of honesty, even if that standard is contrary to that of reasonable and honest people) saying: "A person may in some cases act dishonestly, according to the ordinary use of language, even though he genuinely believes that his action is morally justified. The penniless thief, for example, who picks the pocket of the multi-millionaire is dishonest even though he genuinely considers that theft is morally justified as a fair redistribution of wealth and that he is not therefore being dishonest."
"a claimant is entitled to recover damages where:
(a) the claimant can establish that the defendant's conduct has constituted a breach of some legal duty owed to him personally (whether under the law of contract, torts, trusts or any other branch of the law) AND
(b) on its assessment of the facts, the Court is satisfied that such breach of duty has caused him personal loss, separate and distinct from any loss that may have been occasioned to any corporate body in which he may be financially interested.
I further conclude that, if these two conditions are satisfied, the mere fact that the defendant's conduct may also have given rise to a cause of action at the suit of a company in which the claimant is financially interested (whether directly as a shareholder or indirectly as, for example, a beneficiary under a trust) will not deprive the plaintiff of his cause of action; in such a case, a plea of double jeopardy will not avail the defendant."
1 Citers
Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; HL 27-Jul-2000 - Times, 01 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1607; [2000] UKHL 50; [2000] IRLR 720
Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council; HL 28-Jul-2000 - Times, 28 July 2000; Gazette, 31 August 2000; [2000] UKHL 47; [2001] 2 AC 619; [2000] 3 WLR 776; [2000] 4 All ER 504; (2000) 150 NLJ 1198
Fennelly v Connex South Eastern Ltd; CA 11-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 5568; [2001] IRLR 186
