Show/Hide Tags

Vicarious Liability: Employer vicariously liable for Managing Director's assault's Tags

Tags related to this article

Employment and Pensions

Vicarious Liability: Employer vicariously liable for Managing Director's assault

Published 13 noviembre 2018

The facts

As we reported last year (see here), the High Court found that Northampton Recruitment Ltd was not vicariously liable for the actions of its managing director when he assaulted an employee, causing him permanent brain damage. The Court of Appeal has overturned this decision.

Mr Major, the managing director, who had arranged the company’s Christmas party and was viewed as the company’s directing mind, assaulted an employee in the course of a disagreement in the early hours of the morning when drinking after the Christmas party in a hotel, to which Mr Major had arranged taxis for a number of employees. Mr Bellman and a number of his colleagues were discussing company business, including concerns that a new employee was being paid substantially more than others. The managing director started to lecture the group, lost his temper and punched Mr Bellman, who fell backwards and suffered a serious brain injury.

While the incident occurred at an event attended voluntarily, which was at a different location from the Christmas party, the Court of Appeal found that Mr Major’s remit and authority were wide and that his lecturing of the group involved the exercise of his authority over the other employees. The judge commented that he had chosen to wear his “metaphorical managing director’s hat” by delivering a lecture on his rights as managing director. The assault constituted a misuse of Mr Major’s authority and, despite the time and place of the drinking session, there was a sufficient connection between Mr Major’s role and the assault to mean that the employer was vicariously liable for it.

The Court of Appeal emphasised that the facts of this case were unusual and that liability will not arise just because an argument between colleagues about work related matters leads to an assault even where one person is considerably more senior than the others.

What does this mean for employers?

This case is a reminder that the courts will be prepared to find employers vicariously liable for the acts of their employees, even where the acts take place outside working time and outside the workplace. With the party season approaching, employers may be concerned about this case, and should be clear with employees what standards of behaviour are expected at workplace events, particularly where alcohol is involved.

Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Limited

Authors

Ceri Fuller

London - Walbrook

+44 (0)20 7894 6583

cfuller@dacbeachcroft.com

Key Contacts

Ceri Fuller

London - Walbrook

+44 (0)20 7894 6583

cfuller@dacbeachcroft.com

Whistleblowing: Individual workers can be liable for a whistleblowing dismissal

By Ceri Fuller

The Court of Appeal has upheld the EAT’s decision that an employee may bring a claim against a co-worker on the grounds that the employee has suffered the detriment of dismissal for whistleblowing.