• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • David Jones
    • Debbie Poole
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Two recent Supreme Court cases consider vicarious liability

22nd March 2016

Vicarious liability is where an employer can be held responsible for the actions of an employee – but what if the actions of the employee have little or nothing to do with what they are employed to do? Should the employer be held liable and can an employer or other organisation be held responsible for the actions of those who are not its employees?

These issues have been considered by the Supreme Court in two recent cases, which provided an opportunity to ‘take stock’ of the law of vicarious liability and which we take a closer look at below. For an explanation of vicarious liability, see our previous article which can be found here.

1. In the case of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets a petrol station customer, Mr Mohamud, found himself on the receiving end of physical assault and racist language from a Morrison’s employee, Mr Khan. Mr Khan pursued Mr Mohamud across the petrol station forecourt, punching him and kicking him to the ground. Mr Khan ignored the instructions of his supervisor who tried to stop him.

Mr Mohamud brought a claim against Morrison’s for the injuries he suffered as a result of the assault by Mr Khan. There was no question in this case of there being an employment relationship between Morrison’s and Mr Khan, however the issue arose as to whether there was a sufficiently close connection between what Mr Khan was employed by Morrison’s to do, and his actions against Mr Mohamud, to render Morrison’s vicariously liable.

At first instance, it was held that Morrison’s was not vicariously liable. The trial judge found that the sufficiently close connection test was not met. Mr Mohamud appealed to the Court of Appeal who dismissed his appeal. It was found that whilst Mr Khan’s duties involved interaction with customers, there was not a clear possibility of confrontation, nor did his duties place him in a situation where an outbreak of violence was likely. Therefore, Morrison’s could not be held vicariously liable.

Mr Mohamud’s case was heard by the Supreme Court where it was argued on his behalf (Mr Mohamud had by then passed away from an unrelated illness) that a broader test should be applied i.e. “whether a reasonable observer would consider the employee to be acting in the capacity of a representative of the employer” at the time of committing the unlawful act. The Supreme Court rejected the new test, but allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Khan’s acts were sufficiently connected to his employment for it to be just that Morrisons should be vicariously liable for his actions.

The Supreme Court confirmed that the test was whether the wrongful acts were so closely connected with employment that it would be just to hold the employer liable. The attack had happened on Morrison’s premises and Mr Khan had ordered Mr Mohamud never to return to his employer’s premises. It was held that Mr Khan was not acting in a personal capacity – he had not “metaphorically taken off his uniform from the moment he stepped from behind the counter.”

2. The case of Cox v Ministry of Justice concerned a prisoner who, in the course of carrying out compulsory work in the prison kitchen, dropped a sack of rice onto the catering manager, resulting in a back injury. The issue to be decided was whether the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was liable for the prisoner’s negligent actions. Whilst the county court found that the MoJ was not vicariously liable for the prisoner’s actions, because the relationship between the prisoner and the MoJ was not akin to the relationship between an employer and employee, the catering manager successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The MoJ then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the relationship between the prison service and prisoners was fundamentally different from that of employer and employee.

The Supreme Court found that it didn’t matter that the prison was not carrying on activities of a commercial nature, that the prison work was compulsory, nor that prisoners received incentive payments below the level of a commercial wage. It was sufficient that the prisoner was carrying out activities assigned to him by the prison service as an integral part of its operation and for its benefit, even though the benefit did not take the form of profit. The prison service, by assigning those activities to him, created a risk of the prisoner committing the negligent acts.

The Supreme Court dismissed the MoJ’s appeal and held that they were vicariously liable for the prisoner’s negligent actions. The court stressed that vicarious liability cannot be avoided by technical arguments about the employment status of the individual who committed the acts.

Whilst these recent cases have not changed the law on vicarious liability, they have broadened the potential circumstances where vicarious liability may be imposed.

The difficulty for employers putting themselves in Morrison’s shoes, is identifying what more could have been done to avoid being held vicariously liable for an unprovoked attack by an employee on a customer. Risk prevention is key and so having adequate training and robust policies in place will help to minimise the risks.

As we explained in our previous article, employers can also be held vicariously liable for discriminatory acts by their employees committed in the course of their employment.  With discrimination, however, there is a statutory defence if the employer can show that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected]).

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2016-03-22 12:49:102016-03-24 13:25:41Two recent Supreme Court cases consider vicarious liability

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Can long Covid be a disability? 29th June 2022
  • Employer unfairly counted disability-related absences when dismissing 29th June 2022
  • Did an Employment Tribunal correctly award an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code in a sham redundancy case? 29th June 2022
  • Without prejudice negotiations – what is unambiguous impropriety? 29th June 2022
  • Does referring to a man’s baldness at work amount to sexual harassment? 25th May 2022
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2022

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only