Search

How can we help?

Icon

Supreme Court revisits the law on vicarious liability

In the conjoined cases of Cox v Ministry of Justice and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc, the Supreme Court had to consider two aspects of vicarious liability.  Firstly, whether an employment relationship is necessary for vicarious liability to apply and secondly, whether an employer can be held liable for the criminal acts of its employees. 

In Cox, the claimant was a catering manager at HM Prison Swansea.  She was injured when one of the prisoners dropped a 25kg sack of rice on her back.  She brought a claim for personal injury against the MoJ claiming that it was vicariously liable for the acts of the prisoners notwithstanding that they are not employees.  The Supreme Court, finding in favour of the claimant, held that vicarious liability could arise in a non-employment relationship provided the wrongdoer carried on activities integral to the employer’s business and the employer had created the risk of harm by assigning these activities to the wrongdoer.

In Mohamud, an employee of Morrison’s (working at one of their petrol stations) racially abused the claimant after he asked for assistance.  The employee ordered the claimant to leave and then followed the claimant to his car and physically assaulted him.  The claimant brought a personal injury claim against Morrison’s relying on the principles of vicarious liability.  The issue for the courts to decide here was whether there was a sufficiently close connection between the employee’s acts and their employment.   The Court of Appeal determined that there was not, stating that the mere fact of authorised contact between the parties would not fix the employer with vicarious liability.  However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision and found in favour of the claimant.  It found that the act complained of was sufficiently connected to the ‘field of activities’ entrusted to the individual (such field to be construed broadly) to make it right for the employer to be held liable under the principle of social justice.  Whilst the employee’s conduct was ‘inexcusable’ the Supreme Court felt that his conduct when responding to the Claimant’s request for help was within the field of activities assigned to him, i.e. to attend to customers and respond to their enquiries.  The Supreme Court said that what followed was an ‘unbroken sequence of events’ and it would not be right to regard the employee as having ‘metaphorically taken off his uniform the moment he stepped from behind the counter’.  It drew attention to the fact that throughout the attack, the employee was giving an order for the claimant to leave and, in giving such an order, was purporting to act about his employer’s business.

 

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

The Supreme Court, finding in favour of the claimant, held that vicarious liability could arise in a non-employment relationship provided the wrongdoer carried on activities integral to the employer’s business and the employer had created the risk of harm by assigning these activities to the wrongdoer.

The cases do not significantly change the existing law in this area but rather shed further light on how the legal tests should be applied.  This being said, it is likely that many will find the Mohamud ruling, in particular, surprising given the remote link between the act and the employee’s job role.  In light of these cases, employers should bear in mind the potential difficulty in distancing themselves from the actions of employees and other workers and should ensure that they clearly communicate and enforce the standards expected from those working for them regardless of whether or not they are employees.

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.

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 27 May 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Thinking of exiting your business? Part 3

In the third and final episode of our three-part podcast series, join Stuart Mullins and Nicky Goringe Larkin as they discuss the sectors that are currently popular for business exits, as well as those that may have difficulty attracting buyers.

art
  • 27 May 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Extension of UK adequacy: The European Data Protection Board adopts the European Commission’s decision

Earlier this year, the European Commission adopted an extension of the two 2021 adequacy decisions with the UK for a period of six months, until 27 December 2025.

art
  • 21 May 2025
  • Immigration

UK Immigration 2025: Essential Updates for Employers

In our most recent and timely webinar held on 7 May 2025, the immigration law experts here at Clarkslegal LLP provided employers with a critical update on recent and upcoming changes to UK immigration policies and laws.

art
  • 21 May 2025
  • Employment

The Rise of Side Hustles and Polygamous Working

In the evolving world of work, the rise of side hustles and “polygamous working” is reshaping the employment landscape in the UK.

art
  • 21 May 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

ICO investigating online platforms and the importance of having a good privacy notice

The ICO has recently reported that it is investigating how social media and video sharing platforms use UK children’s personal information.

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.