Search

How can we help?

Icon

Should employers really be held to account in cases of vicarious liability?

Employment lawyers and business alike are awaiting a Supreme Court ruling, which is expected in February, regarding whether or not one of the largest UK banks should be liable for the acts of a doctor hired to carry out pre-employment medical checks. 126 individuals claimed that the doctor had sexually assaulted them and that the bank should be held vicariously liable for his actions. To date, the courts have held the bank liable for the doctor’s actions and the final decision now rests with the Supreme Court.

In the employment context, vicarious liability refers to a situation in which an employer is held responsible for the acts (or omissions) of its workers. If the Supreme Court agrees with previous rulings in the above case, it will be more important than ever before for employers to take positive steps to reduce the risk of being liable for the actions of its workers.

Employer is held responsible for the acts (or omissions) of its workers.

Employers could seek to avoid liability if they can establish that all reasonable steps to prevent the alleged act or omission have been taken – but what does this mean in practical terms? Avoiding liability is not a straightforward exercise, however, at the very least employers should ensure they implement robust policies governing the conduct of their workers, enforce clear workplace standards and provide regular training to ensure that workers are aware of what is, and is not, acceptable conduct.

If you have any concerns or would like a review of your current policies or training programmes, please do not hesitate to contact us.

About this article

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 19 May 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Thinking of exiting your business? Part 2

In the second instalment of our three-part series, join Stuart Mullins from Clarkslegal and Nicky Goringe Larkin from Succession Planning as they discuss the complexities surrounding business financing, accounting practices, and valuation strategies, along with key insights into private equity.

Pub
  • 16 May 2025
  • Employment

London Seminar – Understanding the Employment Rights Bill: Legal changes and what they mean for HR

We are pleased to invite you to an in-person seminar at our London office on Tuesday 24th June, hosted by our Employment Law team. Join Monica Atwal, Managing Partner; Katie Glendinning, Partner; and Amanda Glover, Associate, as they unpack the legal implications of the new Employment Rights Bill and what it means for your organisation.

Pub
  • 16 May 2025
  • Employment

Reading Seminar – Understanding the Employment Rights Bill: Legal changes and what they mean for HR

We are pleased to invite you to an in-person seminar at our Reading office Tuesday 17th June hosted by our Employment Law team. Join Monica Atwal, Managing Partner, Katie Glendinning, Partner and Amanda Glover, Associate, will unpack the legal implications of the new Employment Rights Bill and what it means for your organisation.

art
  • 15 May 2025
  • Immigration

The 2025 Immigration White Paper: A Turning Point in UK Immigration Policy

On 12 May 2025, the UK Government unveiled its White Paper titled “Restoring Control Over the Immigration System”, outlining the most substantial proposed changes to immigration law since the post-Brexit overhaul.

Pub
  • 15 May 2025
  • Employment

TUPE Podcast Series – Information and Consultation Obligations

In this ninth episode of our TUPE Podcast Series, Katie Glendinning, a Partner in the employment team, will examine the information and consultation obligations under TUPE.

art
  • 15 May 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Ashley v HMRC – The High Court clarifies the scope of Data Subject Access Requests

DSARs are very rarely the subject of litigation, and they are even rarer in the High Court, so the case of Ashley v HMRC is a valuable decision for both data subjects and data controllers.