The 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; where A was principal and B agent; and where the two were concerned in a joint act done in pursuance of a common purpose: ‘Certain classes of persons seem clearly to be ‘joint tortfeasors’: The agent who commits a tort within the scope of his employment for his principal, and the principal; the servant who commits a tort in the course of his employment, and his master; two persons who agree on common action, in the course of, and to further which, one of them commits a tort. These seem clearly joint tortfeasors; there is one tort committed by one of them on behalf of, or in concert with another.’ and ‘I am of the opinion that the definition in Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 7th ed., p59, is much nearer the correct view : ‘Persons are said to be joint tortfeasors when their respective shares in the commission of the tort are done in furtherance of a common design’ . . ‘but mere similarity of design on the part of independent actors, causing independent damage, is not enough; there must be concerted action to a common end.’

Scrutton LJ
[1924] P 140
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 . .
CitedBrooke v Bool 1928
Volunteer Was Joint Tortfeasor
A and B set out together to investigate the source of a gas leak which was B’s direct concern alone. A had come with him to help. Because B was too old to carry out a particular task, A carried it out instead. The means of investigation was . .
CitedUnilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited CA 1989
Unilever claimed infringement of its patent. The court was asked whether there was a good arguable case against the United States parent company of the existing defendant sufficient to justify the parent company to be joined as a defendant and to . .
CitedMCA Records Inc and Another v Charly Records Ltd and others (No 5) CA 5-Oct-2001
The court discussed the personal liability of a director for torts committed by his company: ‘i) a director will not be treated as liable with the company as a joint tortfeasor if he does no more than carry out his constitutional role in the . .
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 . .
CitedFish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK and Another AdCt 25-Jun-2012
The claimant company was engaged in tuna fish culture off shore to Malta. The defendant ship was owned by a charity which campaigned against breaches of animal preservation conventions. Fish were being transporting live blue fin tuna in towed . .
CitedSea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd SC 4-Mar-2015
Accessory Liability in Tort
The court considered the concept of accessory liability in tort. Activists had caused damage to vessels of the respondent which was transporting live tuna in cages, and had caused considerable damage. The appellant company owned the ship from which . .
CitedFish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd Uk and Others CA 16-May-2013
The claimant company sought damages after their transport of live tuna was attacked by a protest group. They now appealed against a decision that the company owning the attacking ship was not liable as a joint tortfeasor.
Held: The appeal was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.183581

The Attorney General v Hartwell: PC 23 Feb 2004

PC (The British Virgin Islands) A police officer had taken the police revolver, and used it to shoot the claimant. It was alleged that the respondent police force were vicariously liable for his acts and also negligent in failing to dismiss the officer for earlier misbehaviour.
Held: The officer’s activities once off duty and having left the island had nothing to do with his duties as a police officer. ‘Negligence as a basis of liability is founded on the impersonal (‘objective’) standard of how a reasonable person should have acted in the circumstances. ‘ and ‘one of the necessary prerequisites for the existence of a duty of care is foresight that carelessness on the part of the defendant may cause damage of a particular kind to the plaintiff. ‘ In this case the gun and ammunition were available to the officer, though his use was unlawful. A duty of care existed ‘when entrusting a police officer with a gun the police authorities owe to the public at large a duty to take reasonable care to see the officer is a suitable person to be entrusted with such a dangerous weapon lest by any misuse of it he inflicts personal injury, whether accidentally or intentionally, on other persons. For this purpose no distinction is to be drawn between personal injuries inflicted in the course of police duties and personal injuries inflicted by a police officer using a police gun for his own ends. If this duty seems far-reaching in its scope it must be remembered that guns are dangerous weapons. The wide reach of the duty is proportionate to the gravity of the risks. ‘ Given the eariler compliants about the officers dishonesty and his carrying of knives and guns, that duty had been breached.

[2004] UKPC 12, Times 27-Feb-2004, Gazette 25-Mar-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1273, [2004] PIQR 27
PC, Bailii, PC
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 . .
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 . .
CitedOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
CitedDorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
CitedJolley v Sutton London Borough Council HL 24-May-2000
An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal, . .
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 . .
CitedSmith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
DoubtedDoughty v Turner Ltd CA 1964
The cover on a cauldron of exceedingly hot molten sodium cyanide was accidentally knocked into the cauldron and the plaintiff was damaged by the resultant explosion.
Held: The plaintiff’s claim failed. The defendant employer owed a duty of . .
CitedHughes v Lord Advocate HL 21-Feb-1963
The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. A child climbed down the hole. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. It fell into the hole and caused an explosion. The child was burned. The . .
CitedHill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .
CitedDominion Natural Gas Co Ltd v Collins 1909
The defendants had installed a gas apparatus to provide natural gas on the premises of a railway company. They had installed a regulator to control the pressure and their men negligently made an escape-valve discharge into the building instead of . .
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
CitedBurfitt v A and E Kille 1939
A shopkeeper in Minehead sold a ‘blank cartridge pistol’ to a twelve year old boy. Later, when the boy fired the pistol in the air, the plaintiff was injured by a tiny piece of copper going into his eye.
Held: The duty of care was owed not . .

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 . .
CitedCorr v IBC Vehicles Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .
CitedMitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
CitedRobinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police, Vicarious Liability, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.193879

Racz 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 intention. Lord Jauncey said: ‘My Lords, in my view, striking out paragraph 6 of this claim could only be justified if the inevitable result of proof of the averments therein was that the unauthorised acts of the prison officers was so unconnected with their authorised duties as to be quite independent of and outside those duties’.
And ‘ the Court of Appeal were dealing with the question of mode of trial upon the basis that the claim in respect of misfeasance in public office would not proceed. However, the facts relevant to that claim are likely to be identical to those which will be considered under the remaining heads of claim and the issue of exemplary damages also falls to be considered under those heads of claim.’ However, there can be no false imprisonment of a prisoner who is lawfully confined under section 12(1) of the 1952 Act, and a restraint upon movement which is not in accordance with the Prison Rules 1964 does not give rise to a cause of action for either false imprisonment or breach of statutory duty.

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Times 17-Dec-1993, Independent 17-Dec-1993, [1994] 2 WLR 23, [1994] 1 All ER 97, [1994] 2 AC 45
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 . .

Cited by:
CitedThree Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England HL 18-May-2000
The applicants alleged misfeasance against the Bank of England in respect of the regulation of a bank.
Held: The Bank could not be sued in negligence, but the tort of misfeasance required clear evidence of misdeeds. The action was now properly . .
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 . .
CitedHouchin v Lincolnshire Probation Trust QBD 9-Apr-2013
houchin_lincsPSQBD2013
The defendant sought to have the claim struck out. The prisoner said that the defendant’s probation officer had through misfeasance in public office arranged for his transfer back to secure conditions from open ones. The parole board panel had found . .
CitedElliott v Chief Constable of Wiltshire and Others ChD 20-Nov-1996
Vice-Chancellor was asked to consider whether to strike out a statement of claim based upon alleged misfeasance by a police officer in his public office. The allegation against the police officer was that he had deliberately and falsely supplied . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Prisons, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.85636

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 some defendants (school management trust) not vicariously liable. The other defendants appealed.
Held: The appeals succeeded. It was fair and just and reasonable for the defendants to share liability.
The law of vicarious liability has been extended (Lord Phillips: ‘The law of vicarious liability is on the move’). Unincorporated associations might now be liable, such liability extended beyond the strict extent of the employee’s duties, and could include illegal activity, and such liability can be shared.

Lord Phillips, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath
[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
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDonovan v Laing, Wharton and Down Construction Syndicate Ltd CA 1893
The plaintiff was injured by the negligence of a crane driver. The defendants had contracted to lend the crane with its driver to a firm who were loading a ship.
Held: There are circumstances in which vicarious liability for the tortious act . .
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. . .
CitedMersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd HL 1946
Employers Liability for Worker’s Negligence
A worker was injured by a negligently driven crane. The crane and Board’s driver were hired out to stevedores for loading work. The stevedores controlled the crane’s operations, but did not direct how the driver controlled the crane. The hire . .
CitedHawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd and others CA 24-Jan-2006
The claimant was assaulted and severely injured at a night club by a doorman supplied to the club by a third party company now in liquidation. He claimed the club was the ‘temporary deemed employer’ of the doorman. He also sought to claim under the . .
CitedVarious 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 . .
CitedBiffa 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. . .
At first instanceJGE 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. . .
CitedHeaton’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 . .
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 . .
CitedThomas v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area) ChD 1985
Threats made by pickets to those miners who sought to go to work were not an assault because the pickets had no capacity to put into effect their threats of violence whilst they were held back from the vehicles which the working miners were within. . .
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 . .
CitedBrink’s Global Services Inc and Others v Igrox Ltd and Another CA 27-Oct-2010
There was a sufficiently close connection between an employee’s theft of silver from a customer’s container and the purpose of his employment to make it fair and just that his employer be held vicariously liable for his actions. Moore-Bick LJ said: . .
CitedMaga v The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church CA 16-Mar-2010
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedA v The Archbishop of Birmingham QBD 30-Jun-2005
Assessment of damages following child abuse by Catholic priest.
Held: General damages of andpound;50,000 were in line with Coxon and were approved. A had not been shown to be, and is not, incapable of managing his affairs. The court differed . .
CitedViasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others CA 10-Oct-2005
The defendants had subcontracted work installing air conditioning to the second defendants, who in turn bought in fitters from the third defendants. A fitter caused a flood acting irresponsibly.
Held: The court reviewed the law of vicarious . .
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 . .

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 . .
CitedCox v Ministry of Justice CA 19-Feb-2014
Appeal against rejection of claim for personal injury. While working as the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the Claimant was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner carrying out paid work under her supervision. The . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedNA 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 . .
CitedNA 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 . .
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.465935

General Engineering Services v Kingston and Saint Andrew Corporation: PC 21 Nov 1988

There was a fire at the petitioner’s premises. The firemen, employed by the respondent, were in an industrial dispute and drove to the fire slowly. One was said to have commented: ‘we are on a go-slow and even if my mother was in there, it would have to burn down. I want my raise of pay’. The company claimed damages.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed. The respondent was not vicariously liable. The actions of the firemen were not a way of perfuming an authorised act.

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Sir John Stephenson
[1988] 3 All ER 867, [1988] UKPC 26, [1988] UKPC 2, [1989] IRLR 35, [1989] 1 WLR 69, [1989] ICR 88
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Vicarious Liability

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.188843

Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court: Admn 30 Apr 2010

The claimant a retired Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision to commit him for trial on a charge of unlawful imprisonment. The suspect and now prosecutor had been arrested and held in custody, but without the necessary timely review by the defendant’s officers. He now pursued a private prosecution.
Held: The review was granted. The issue of a summons involves the exercise of a judicial discretion. The use of proceedings to satisfy an ulterior motive can amount to an abuse, which can be stayed at a later point. In this case there was no evidence of the Chief Constable’s personal involvement at any stage in or near the actions complained of. There is, in general, no doctrine of criminal vicarious liability at common law. This case did not fall with any of the three exceptions. ‘[T]o pursue, a case which was . . hopelessly misconceived, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court, is to be guilty of the kind of serious misconduct which amply merits, indeed requires, the exercise by the Magistrates’ Court of its power to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process.’

Munby LJ, Keith J
[2010] EWHC 935 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin 1975
A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative. A summons (or warrant) is merely machinery for giving a defendant notice of the . .
CitedLondon Borough of Newham, Regina (on the Application of) v Stratford Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Oct-2004
. .
CitedRegina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
CitedRoberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary CA 26-Jan-1999
The claimant had been detained at 11.25pm. His detention was not reviewed by an inspector until 7.45am the next morning, although it had been considered in the interim at 1.45am by an officer of junior rank. The plaintiff sued for unlawful . .
CitedRegina v Rahman CACD 1985
False imprisonment is a common law offence, defined as consisting in ‘the unlawful and intentional or reckless restraint of a victim’s freedom of movement from a particular place. In other words it is unlawful detention which stops the victim moving . .
CitedRegina v Stephens 1866
The court was asked whether the owner of a slate quarry was answerable for a public nuisance caused by his workmen without his knowledge and contrary to his general orders.
Held: Mellor J: ‘It is quite true that this in point of form is a . .
CitedRegina (on the Applications of Salubi and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 10-May-2002
The several applicants had been accused of offences under which the cases were to be transferred direct to the Crown Court for trial. The charges were later amended, with alternative offences preferred for which similar procedures might be and were . .
CitedRegina v Hutchins CACD 1988
The defendant was at a party where he took a range of drugs. He was accused of attacking one girl, and then imprisoning another with a neighbour. He appealed against his convictions for unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedRex v Huggins and Barnes KBD 1730
Gaoler – Murder of Prisoner by Lack of Care
The defendant Huggins was warden of the Fleet Prison. A prisoner, Arne, died in 1725. Barnes, a gaoler had put him in a room ‘without fire, chamber-pot or close-stool, the walls being damp and unwholesome, and the room built over the common sewer’. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Vicarious Liability, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.408832

The Citizens Life Assurance Company Limited v Brown: PC 6 May 1904

(New South Wales) A malicious libel was alleged. The life assurance company was vicariously liable in respect of a libel contained in a circular sent out by a person who was employed by the company under a written agreement as its ‘superintendent of agencies’. By the terms of the agreement that person was to devote his whole time to furthering the company’s business and was to be paid a salary weekly as well as a commission on policies procured by him.
Held: He was a servant of the company for whose actions the company was liable. Once companies are recognised by the law as legal persons, they are liable to have the mental states of agents and employees such as dishonesty or malice attributed to them for the purpose of establishing civil liability.
Lord Lindley said: ‘If it is once granted that corporations are for civil purposes to be regarded as persons, ie as principals acting by agents and servants, it is difficult to see why the ordinary doctrines of agency and of master and servant are not to be applied to corporations as well as to ordinary individuals.’
Lord Lindley
[1904] UKPC 20, [1904] AC 423
Bailii
Australia
Citing:
RejectedAbrath v North Eastern Railway Co HL 15-Mar-1886
The plaintiff had brought an action against the company of malicious prosecution. It was rejected by the jury and again on appeal.
Held: The appeal failed. In an action for damages for the tort of malicious prosecution one of the elements of . .

Cited by:
CitedJetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
CitedJetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others CA 31-Jul-2013
Defendants appealed against refusal of their request for a summary striking out for lack of jurisdiction, of the claims against them arising from their management of the insolvency of the first defendant. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.419585

Generale 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 liable to B as a joint tortfeasor with C in the tort of deceit practised by C on B on the basis that A and C have a common design to defraud B and A renders assistance to C pursuant to and in furtherance of the common design, does D, A’s employer, become vicariously liable to B, simply because the act of assistance, which is not itself the deceit, is in the course of A’s employment with D? An employer was not liable for the fraudulent acts of his employee during the employment but may be for purposes of fraud by third party.
Hobhouse LJ said: ‘Mere assistance, even knowing assistance, does not suffice to make the ‘secondary’ party liable as a joint tortfeasor with the primary party. What he does must go further. He must have conspired with the primary party or procured or induced his commission of the tort . . ; or he must have joined in the common design pursuant to which the tort was committed’
Stuart-Smith LJ, Hobhouse LJ
Times 04-Aug-1997, Gazette 10-Sep-1997, [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 19, [1997] EWCA Civ 2165
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromGenerale 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. . .
CitedPLG Research Ltd and Another v Ardon International Ltd and Others ChD 25-Nov-1994
A patent infingement claim was met by the assertion that the material covered had been disclosed before the patent had been obtained. The court was asked as to the test of whether the information in a claim had been disclosed. Aldous J said: ‘Mr. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromGenerale 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 . .
CitedAbouRahmah and Another v Abacha and others QBD 28-Nov-2005
Claims were made as to an alleged fraud by some of the respondents. . .
CitedBritish Telecommunications Plc; Virgin Enterprises Ltd; J Sainsbury Plc; Marks and Spencer Plc and Ladbroke Group Plc v One In a Million Ltd and others CA 23-Jul-1998
Registration of a distinctive Internet domain name using registered trade marks and company names could be an infringement of a registered Trade Mark, and also passing off. It was proper to grant quia timet injunctions where necessary to stop . .
CitedTotal Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
CitedTwentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Another v Newzbin Ltd ChD 29-Mar-2010
The defendant operated a web-site providing a search facility of the Usenet news system which allowed its users to locate copies of films online for downloading. The claimant said this was an infringement of its copyrights.
Held: The defendant . .
CitedThe Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd QBD 30-Mar-2011
The claimant objected to the resale through the defendant of tickets to matches held at the Twickenham Stadium. The tickets contained terms disallowing resales at prices over the face value. They sought orders for the disclosure of the names of the . .
CitedFish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK and Another AdCt 25-Jun-2012
The claimant company was engaged in tuna fish culture off shore to Malta. The defendant ship was owned by a charity which campaigned against breaches of animal preservation conventions. Fish were being transporting live blue fin tuna in towed . .
CitedFish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd Uk and Others CA 16-May-2013
The claimant company sought damages after their transport of live tuna was attacked by a protest group. They now appealed against a decision that the company owning the attacking ship was not liable as a joint tortfeasor.
Held: The appeal was . .
CitedSea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd SC 4-Mar-2015
Accessory Liability in Tort
The court considered the concept of accessory liability in tort. Activists had caused damage to vessels of the respondent which was transporting live tuna in cages, and had caused considerable damage. The appellant company owned the ship from which . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.80791

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petterson v Royal Oak Hotel Ltd: 1948

A barman had refused to serve a drunken customer with more alcohol. As the customer was on his way out of the premises, he threw a glass at the barman which broke in pieces at his feet. The barman picked up a piece of the broken glass and threw it back at the departing customer, but missed him and injured the eye of another customer, who sued for damages. At trial, the trial judge found that the barman threw the piece of glass ‘not in order to expedite the departure of the troublesome customer, but as an expression of his personal resentment at the glass being thrown at him’. He found for the claimant.
Held: His judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The barman’s action was an improper mode of doing his job of keeping order in the bar and avoiding altercations, although at the time the customer was leaving.
[1948] NZLR 136
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.606514

Houldsworth v City of Glasgow Bank: HL 1880

‘an innocent principal was civilly responsible for the fraud of his authorised agent, acting within his authority, to the same extent as if it was his own fraud’.
(1880) 5 App Cas 317
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.606513

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young v Edward Box and Co Ltd: CA 1951

A lorry driver employed by a firm of contractors on a site where many other contractors were working, contrary to his express instructions, gave an employee of another firm of contractors a lift in his lorry. The passenger was injured and sought to sue the employer.
Held: He could not.
Lord Denning MR said:’In every case where it is sought to make the master liable for the conduct of his servant, the first question is to see whether the servant was liable. If the answer is Yes, the second question is to see whether the employer must shoulder the servant’s liability’.
Asquith LJ said: ‘I should hold that taking men not employed by the defendants on to the vehicle was not merely a wrongful mode of performing the act of the class this driver was employed to perform, but was the performance of an act of a class ‘which he was not employed to perform at all.’
References: [1951] 1 TLR 789
Judges: Asquith LJ, Denning LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • 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.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.278320

Conway v George Wimpey and Co Ltd: CA 1951

A number of contractors were employed in work at the Heathrow Airport. The defendant company had instituted a bus service for their own employees and the driver was prohibited by the defendant company from giving lifts to anyone other than their own employees.
Held: The claim failed. The act of the driver in giving a lift to the plaintiff was outside the scope of his employment. It was not merely a wrongful mode of performing an act of the class which the driver was employed to perform, but was the performance of an act which he was not employed to perform.
Asquith LJ said: ‘I should hold that taking men not employed by the defendants on to the vehicle was not merely a wrongful mode of performing the act of the class this driver was employed to perform, but was the performance of an act of a class ‘which he was not employed to perform at all.’
References: [1951] 2 KB 266
Judges: Asquith LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Not Followed – 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.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.278318

Seaboard Offshore Ltd v Secretary of State Transport: QBD 24 Mar 1993

A company is not vicariously liable for the failure of the Captain of ship to comply with the section. The section was not framed so as to appear to give rise to criminal liability of an employer for acts of an employee in such circumstances. The owner did not have personal vicarious liability for everything done in operating the ship.
References: Gazette 24-Mar-1993
Statutes: Merchant Shipping Act 1988 31

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.89075

Oceangas (Gibraltar) Ltd v Pla (The Cavendish): QBD 24 May 1993

A harbour authority is not vicariously liable for a pilot’s negligence. A pilot is an independent professional person, even though the port provides his services, and can insist on his employment.
References: Times 24-May-1993, Gazette 01-Sep-1993, Independent 28-May-1993
Statutes: Pilotage Act 1987

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.84417

Director General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd, sub nom Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2): HL 25 Nov 1994

The actions of company employees, acting in the course of their employment and in contempt may put the company employer in contempt also, and even though the company may have given explicit instructions that no infringing agreement should be entered into.
References: Independent 30-Nov-1994, Times 25-Nov-1994, Gazette 05-Jan-1995, [1995] 1 AC 456
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – In Re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2) CA 8-Jul-1993
    An employer was not liable for its employee’s action in contempt of court against the company’s clear instructions with regard to anti-competitive agreements. . .
    (Times 08-Jul-93, Independent 14-Jul-93)
  • See Also – Director General of Fair Trading v Smiths Concrete: re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete 1992
    For a person to be found in contempt of a court order it is necessary to show that that he knew of the relevant order and with that knowledge he intended to do the act which amounted to a breach of the court order. It is not necessary to show that . .
    ([1992] QB 212)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Bird v Hadkinson ChD 4-Mar-1999
    A party ordered to make disclosure in Mareva proceedings, could be found in contempt where the answers given were technically true, but misleading because of their incompleteness. The party has a clear duty to provide full and accurate disclosure. A . .
    (Times 07-Apr-99, [1999] BPIR 653)
  • Cited – Gulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd v Idisi ComC 22-Nov-2000
    Application to commit defendant to prison for contempt of court. . .
    (, [2000] EWHC 201 (Comm))
  • Cited – Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
    The claimant had been a customer of the defendant, but had moved to another supplier. She was then subjected to a constant stream of threatening letters which she could not stop despite re-assurances and complaints. The defendant now appealed . .
    (, [2009] EWCA Civ 46, [2009] 3 All ER 304, [2010] 1 WLR 785)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.82207

Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants: CA 17 Jul 2018

126 claimants alleged sexual assaults by a man now deceased, during the course of their employment by the defendant bank. The court now considered whether the bank was vicariously liable for his acts.
References: [2018] EWCA Civ 1670
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619875

Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc: QBD 16 May 2018

References: [2018] EWHC 1123 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Langstaff J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • See Also – Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarket Plc QBD 1-Dec-2017
    The defendant employer had had confidential information of many of its staff taken and disclosed by a rogue employee. The employees now sought compensation. The main issue was whether the company was directly or vicariously liable for the tort.
    (, [2017] EWHC 3113 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 806, , [2018] IRLR 200, [2018] EMLR 12, [2018] 3 WLR 691)
  • Cited – O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Apr-2016
    The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending . .
    (, [2016] UKSC 19, [2016] 1 WLR 1717, [2016] WLR(D) 222, [2016] INLR 494, [2016] 4 All ER 1003, , UKSC 2014/0227, , , )

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.616161

Bartonshill Coal Company v Jane McGuire, Widow: HL 17 Jun 1858

Master’s Liability to the Public for Injury done by a Servant. – Per the Lord Chancellor: A master is liable for any injury or damage done to the public through the negligence or unskilfulness of servants acting in the master’s employ. The reason is, that every act done by the servant in the course of his duty is regarded as done by his master’s orders, and consequently is the same as if it were the master’s own act, according to the maxim, Qui facit per alium facit per se – Subject – Master’s Exemption from Liability to one Servant for Injury done to him by a Fellow-Servant. – When the injury caused by the negligence or unskilfulness of a servant is sustained, not by the public, but by another servant acting in the same employment under the same master, the master is not liable, unless there be proof of general incompetency on the part of the servant causing the injury, or of insufficiency or defectiveness in the machinery furnished by the master;
Per Lord Brougham: The two servants (the injurer and the injured) must be in the same common employment, and engaged in the same common work under that common employment
Lord Chelmsford LC said: ‘It is necessary to ascertain whether the servants are fellow-labourers in the same common work; because, although a servant may be taken to have engaged to encounter all risks which are incident to the service which he undertakes, he cannot be expected to anticipate those which may happen to him on occasions foreign to his employment’
References: (1858) 3 Macq 300, [1858] UKHL 3 – Macqueen – 300
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chelmsford LC, Lord Brougham
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016 (, , [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, , )
    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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 17 November 2020; Ref: scu.606464

Various Claimants v Barclays Bank Plc: QBD 26 Jul 2017

The claimants alleged that they had been sexually assaulted many years ago by a doctor employed by the defendant bank on their applications for employment. The court was now asked as a preliminary apoint whether the Bank was vicariously liable for his actions.
Held: The Bank was vicariously liable.
References: [2017] EWHC 1929 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Nicola Davies DBE J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 11 November 2020; Ref: scu.591317

Kondis v State Transport Authority; 16 Oct 1984

References: [1984] HCA 61, (1984) 154 CLR 672, (1984) 55 ALR 225, (1984) 58 ALJR 531, (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-311
Links: Austlii
Coram: Mason J
(High Court of Australia) Mason J discussed the concept of the personal duty which Lord Wright expounded in Wilson and said that it made it impossible to draw a convincing distinction between the delegation of performance of the employer’s duty to an employee and delegation to an independent contractor. As Mason J said: ‘On the hypothesis that the duty is personal or incapable of delegation, the employer is liable for its negligent performance, whether the performance be that of an employee or that of an independent contractor’ and as to the existence of a non-delegable duty: ‘when we look to the classes of case in which the existence of a non-delegable duty has been recognised, it appears that there is some element in the relationship between the parties that makes it appropriate to impose on the defendant a duty to ensure that reasonable care and skill is taken for the safety of the persons to whom the duty is owed . . The element in the relationship between the parties which generates a special responsibility or duty to see that care is taken may be found in one or more of several circumstances. The hospital undertakes the care, supervision and control of patients who are in special need of care. The school authority undertakes like special responsibilities in relation to the children whom it accepts into its care. If the invitor be subject to a special duty, it is because he assumes a particular responsibility in relation to the safety of his premises and the safety of his invitee by inviting him to enter them . . In these situations the special duty arises because the person on whom it is imposed has undertaken the care, supervision or control of the person or property of another or is so placed in relation to that person or his property as to assume a particular responsibility for his or its safety, in circumstances where the person affected might reasonably expect that due care will be exercised.’
This case cites:

  • Explained – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd -v- English HL ([1938] AC 57, Bailii, [1937] UKHL 2)
    The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Farraj and Another -v- King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1203, (2010) 11 BMLR 131, [2010] PIQR P7, [2010] Med LR 1)
    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, . .
  • Cited – Woodland -v- The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2631 (QB), [2012] PIQR P3, [2012] ELR 76)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Woodland -v- Essex County Council CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 239, [2013] 3 WLR 853, [2012] ELR 327, [2012] Med LR 419, [2012] PIQR P12, [2012] BLGR 879)
    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. . .

Lewis v British Columbia; 11 Dec 1997

References: [1997] 3 SCR 1145, 43 BCLR (3d) 154, 1997 CanLII 304 (SCC), 153 DLR (4th) 594, [1998] 5 WWR 732
Links: Canlii, Canlii
Coram: Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ
(Supreme Court of Canada) Torts – Negligence – Highways – Crown liability – Provincial ministry engaging independent contractor to remove rocks from cliff face – Contractor performing work negligently, leaving rocks protruding from cliff face – Driver fatally injured when one of rocks fell from cliff face and crashed through his windshield – Whether provincial ministry absolved from liability for contractor’s negligence.
Cory J said that a common law duty of care ‘does not usually demand compliance with a specific obligation. It is only when an act is undertaken by a party that a general duty arises to perform the act with reasonable care.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Woodland -v- Essex County Council SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 66, WLRD, [2013] 3 WLR 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 403, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0093, SC Summary, SC)
    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 . .

Jacobi v Griffiths; 17 Jun 1999

References: (1999) 174 DLR(4th) 71, [1999] 9 WWR 1, 44 CCEL (2d) 169, 63 BCLR (3d) 1
Links: Canlii
(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 precedents which unambiguously determine on which side of the line between vicarious liability and no liability the case falls. 2. If prior cases do not clearly suggest a solution the next step is to determine whether vicarious liability should be imposed in light of the broader policy rationales behind strict liability. In this case that test was not satisfied.
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Approved – Lister and Others -v- Hesley Hall Ltd HL (Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, Bailii, House of Lords, [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)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Majrowski -v- Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 251, Times 21-Mar-05, [2005] QB 848, [2005] ICR 977, [2005] 2 WLR 1503, [2005] IRLR 340)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Gravil -v- Carroll and Another CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 689, Times 22-Jul-08, [2008] ICR 1222, [2008] IRLR 829)
    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 a finding that they were not vicariously liable. The defendant player’s . .
  • Applied – Maga -v- The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 256, Times, [2010] PTSR 1618, [2010] 1 WLR 1441)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Graham -v- Commercial Bodyworks Ltd CA (Bailii, [2015] EWCA Civ 47, [2015] WLR(D) 50, WLRD)
    The claimant had been very badly burned. He was covered in flammable liquid when a co-worker lit a cigarette.
    Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. ‘although the defendant employers did create a risk by requiring their employees to work with . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 14-Dec-15 Ref: 214670

Bazley v Curry; 17 Jun 1999

References: (1999) 174 DLR(4th) 45, [1999] 8 WWR 197, 43 CCEL (2d) 1, 62 BCLR (3d) 173
Links: Canlii
Coram: McLachlin J
(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 said that the employer has introduced the risk of the wrong (and is thereby fairly and usefully charged with its management and minimization). The question is whether there is a connection or nexus between the employment enterprise and that wrong that justifies imposition of vicarious liability on the employer for the wrong, in terms of fair allocation of the consequences of the risk and/or deterrence.’ The court criticised the decision in Trotman, saying: ‘the opinion’s reasoning depends on the level of generality with which the sexual act is described. Instead of describing the act in terms of the employee’s duties of supervising and caring for vulnerable students during a study trip abroad, the Court of Appeal cast it in terms unrelated to those duties. Important legal decisions should not turn on such semantics. As Atiyah points out (Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts, p 263): ‘conduct can be correctly described at varying levels of generality, and no one description of the ‘act’ on which the servant was engaged is necessarily more correct than any other’.’
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Approved – Lister and Others -v- Hesley Hall Ltd HL (Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, Bailii, House of Lords, [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)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Bernard -v- The Attorney General of Jamaica PC (PC, Bailii, [2004] UKPC 47, PC, No. 30 of 2003, [2005] IRLR 398)
    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 – Majrowski -v- Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 251, Times 21-Mar-05, [2005] QB 848, [2005] ICR 977, [2005] 2 WLR 1503, [2005] IRLR 340)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Gravil -v- Carroll and Another CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 689, Times 22-Jul-08, [2008] ICR 1222, [2008] IRLR 829)
    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 a finding that they were not vicariously liable. The defendant player’s . .
  • Cited – Maga -v- The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 256, Times, [2010] PTSR 1618, [2010] 1 WLR 1441)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Weddall -v- Barchester Healthcare Ltd CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 25)
    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 . .
  • Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others -v- Various Claimants & The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 56, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, 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)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Graham -v- Commercial Bodyworks Ltd CA (Bailii, [2015] EWCA Civ 47, [2015] WLR(D) 50, WLRD)
    The claimant had been very badly burned. He was covered in flammable liquid when a co-worker lit a cigarette.
    Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. ‘although the defendant employers did create a risk by requiring their employees to work with . .