All items: Vicarious liability

• expand

  Banks v Ablex Limited [2005] All ER (D) 366 (Feb) CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Harassment/employer's liability: Claim under Protection from Harassment Act 1997 fails

    Date:

    13 May 2005

    In Banks v Ablex Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the claimant suffered a depressive disorder, allegedly as a result of the conduct of a colleague, but failed to establish that a course of conduct had taken place that could be properly described as harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in that she failed to show that the misconduct had occurred on at least two occasions.

• expand

  Barclays Bank plc v Various claimants [2020] IRLR 481 SC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Supreme Court: Employer not vicariously liable for sexual assaults by medical contractor

    Date:

    8 April 2020

    In Barclays Bank plc v Various claimants, the Supreme Court held that the employer is not vicariously liable for an independent doctor's alleged sexual assaults on 126 job applicants and employees.

• expand

  Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124 HC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Vicarious liability: employer not liable for post-Christmas party assault

    Date:

    13 December 2016

    The High Court has held that an employer was not vicariously liable for a managing director's "brutal assault" of an employee during a drinking session after the employer's Christmas party.

• expand

  Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica [2005] IRLR 398 PC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Employer's liability: Privy Council holds Jamaica liable for off-duty policeman shooting

    Date:

    24 June 2005

    In Bernard v Attorney-General of Jamaica, the Privy Council holds that the Attorney-General of Jamaica was vicariously liable for the unlawful shooting of a member of the public by a police constable who was attempting to jump the queue for a public telephone.

• expand

  Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 1 All ER 574 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Cassidy v Ministry of Health

    Date:

    31 December 1951

    In Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 1 All ER 574 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where evidence showed a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the persons in whose care the plaintiff was, the defendants were liable to the plaintiff regardless of which individual was negligent.

• expand

  Cox v Ministry of Justice [2014] EWCA Civ 132 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Vicarious liability: Ministry of Justice's relationship with prisoner engaged in kitchen work "akin to employment"

    Date:

    7 March 2014

    The Court of Appeal has held that the Ministry of Justice, which it found had a relationship with a prisoner assigned to do kitchen work "akin to employment", was vicariously liable for the negligence of the prisoner when he accidentally dropped a heavy sack of food on a member of staff's back.

• expand

  Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] IRLR 370 SC (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Vicarious liability: Relationship between prison service and working prisoners akin to employment

    Date:

    5 May 2016

    In Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] IRLR 370 SC, the Supreme Court held that the Ministry of Justice was vicariously liable for the negligent act of a prisoner while he was working in a prison kitchen.

  • Vicarious liability: Ministry of Justice liable for staff injury caused by working prisoner

    Date:

    3 March 2016

    The Supreme Court has held that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was vicariously liable for the negligence of a prisoner who injured a member of staff while carrying out kitchen work.

• expand

  Fennelly v Connex South Eastern Ltd [2001] IRLR 390 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Employer liability: Employer vicariously liable for assault carried out by employee

    Date:

    15 October 2001

    In Fennelly v Connex South Eastern Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an employer was responsible for an assault carried out by one of its employees as it took place in the course of his employment. Judging whether an action is taken in the course of employment requires looking at the job being done by the employee in general terms rather than analysing its component parts.

• expand

  Graham v Commercial Bodyworks Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 47 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Vicarious liability: employer not liable for injuries sustained in horseplay at work

    Date:

    17 March 2015

    The Court of Appeal has held that creating the risk of harm in the workplace was not sufficient to impose liability on the employer for the "frolicsome but reckless" conduct of an employee.

• expand

  Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd [2007] EWHC 2604 HC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd

    Date:

    19 November 2007

    The High Court has held that, in order to succeed in a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, an employee must show that there was 'an element of real seriousness' to the harassment.