Moores v Bude-Stratton Town Council: EAT 27 Mar 2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Lindsay J said: ‘As for determining whether a wrongdoer is on his own business, just as no single test is nowadays seen to be determinative of whether a person is an employee (as opposed, for example, to being self-employed or an independent contractor), so also no one test is determinative of a person being on his own business for the purposes of vicarious liability, very commonly a closely related question. Similar questions arise in both cases: was remuneration paid for the doing of what was done; was what was done, done for the benefit of the party sought vicariously to be made liable (‘the propositus’)? Was the act complained of reasonably incidental to the duties of the wrongdoer as cast upon him by the propositus? Was the propositus in a position of control, not only to order what was to be done but how it was to be done? Was the propositus in a position to select who should do the activity in the course of which the wrongful act occurred? Could the propositus suspend or stop that activity? Was what was done expressly or impliedly authorised by the propositus? Was it an unauthorised way of doing something which was authorised? Was it the performance of an act of a class the wrongdoer was not required to do at all or had been forbidden to do? No single question and answer is likely to be determinative but together the answers should provide a composite from which it can be adjudged whether vicarious liability exists.’


Justice Lindsay (President)


EAT/313/99, [2000] EAT 313 – 99 – 2703, [2001] ICR 271


EATn, Bailii


See AlsoMoores v Bude-Stratton Town Council EAT 13-May-1999
Preliminary hearing in proposed appeal. . .

Cited by:

CitedCheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD 15-Jun-2009
The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171795