‘On 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in two conjoined Vicarious Liability cases: WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13. In this article, Michael Patrick reviews those judgments and considers their impact on the law of Vicarious Liability.’
Hailsham Chambers, 9th April 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘The Supreme Court has handed down two new judgments addressing the legal limits of vicarious liability in employment and non-employment cases.’
Old Square Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘On the inauspicious April Fool’s Day, the Supreme Court brought a stop to the expanding course of the law of vicarious liability in two decisions which bear careful consideration and will have a significant impact on the scope for liability in the law of tort generally, beyond the particular contexts of sexual abuse and data protection litigation.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘For the last 20 years the boundaries of vicarious liability have expanded. In this article Roger Quickfall discusses how the Supreme Court has brought much needed clarity.’
Parklane Plowden, 7th April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The High Court has held that a Court of Appeal judgment in a Civil Contempt sentence appeal involving the Respondent although it did not increase the Respondent doctor’s sentence for contempt but led to a finding of undue lenience should have been put before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) when considering the sanction for the admitted Contempt. This is despite the General Medical Council (GMC), which exercised its right of appeal under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983 to bring the case before the High Court, having agreed not to put the judgment before the MPT prior to and during the MPT proceedings.’
Old Square Chambers, 8th April 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Sexual allegations can be distinguished from criminal allegations of other types by virtue of often being prosecuted purely on the basis of one person’s word. There are invariably no witnesses to the interaction between the Complainant and Defendant during which the alleged offence is said to have been committed. There is very rarely any physical or scientific evidence capable of proving or refuting the allegation. No circumstantial evidence. No technological evidence. Sexual allegations are increasingly made weeks, months or even years after the alleged event, by which time delay has frayed memories on all sides which leaves nothing but word against word.’
Park Square Barristers, 7th April 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Morrisons, heard recently in the Supreme Court, concerns vicarious liability for a rogue data controller. Together with another Supreme Court case, Barclays Bank, these two cases cover all the key issues.’
Six Pump Court, 8th April 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘There is no doubt that the Government owes a moral duty to provide those on the frontline fighting this virus with the tools they need to work safely. Beyond the undeniable moral duty, does the Government owe them a legal duty as well?’
Nexus Chambers, 10th April 2020
Source: www.nexuschambers.com
‘A doctor who received a suspended sentence for contempt of court over a false medical report has been erased from the medical register by the High Court.’
Litigation Futures, 14th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Robert Kellar QC and Isabel McArdle of 1 Crown Office Row discuss with Rosalind English the latest Supreme Court rulings rejecting the liability of Barclays Bank for the wrongdoings of an independent contractor, on the one hand, and the liability of Morris’s Supermarket for the breach of data protection laws by one of its employees, on the other. Are enterprises to be shielded from the risks created by persons they commission to perform certain tasks?’
Law Pod UK, 9th April 2020
Source: audioboom.com
‘In the Christian Brothers case Lord Phillips of famously declared that “the law of vicarious liability is on the move”. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Barclays Bank v. Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 has brought that movement to a juddering halt. The question posed by the appeal was a simple one. Is it possible to be vicariously liable for the acts of a self-employed ‘independent contractor’? The answer the Court gave in this case was ‘no’.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In this appeal, the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether Barclays Bank is vicariously liable for sexual assaults allegedly committed between 1968 and about 1984 by the late Dr Gordon Bates. Dr Bates was a self-employed medical practitioner with a portfolio practice. His work included conducting medical assessments and examinations of prospective Barclays employees. Barclays required job applicants to pass a pre-employment medical examination as part of its recruitment and employment procedures.’
UKSC Blog, 1st April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Barclays is not liable for the alleged sexual assault of more than 100 patients by a doctor carrying out medicals on the bank’s behalf, the supreme court has ruled.’
The Guardian, 1st April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘An analysis of the ethical and legal considerations underpinning a decision to inform a patient’s relatives about a diagnosis of a genetic disorder in light of the recent judgment handed down in ABC v St Georges Healthcare and Others [2020] EWHC 455 (QB).’
Exchange Chambers, 25th March 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘In 2007 C’s father (XX) killed his wife, C’s mother. He was made the subject of a hospital order. He was treated by D1’s multidisciplinary team. In 2009 his care was transferred to Dr O, a consultant forensic psychiatrist. C took part in family therapy sessions through D2. There was a suspicion that XX had Huntington’s disease but he refused to undergo genetic testing. He did not want C or her sister to know. His patient confidentiality was respected by D1 and D2. About this time C became pregnant. In 2013 C tested positive for Huntington’s. C was accidentally informed that XX had tested positive.’
No. 5 Chambers, 10th March 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘Edwin Jesudason (‘C’), was a paediatric surgeon who was an honorary consultant working in the Department of Paediatric Surgery (‘DPS’) in the respondent NHS trust from 2006 until he resigned in 2012. Between 2009 and 2014 he made a series of allegations to the Trust, regulatory bodies and the media where he alleged fundamental failings in the operation of the DPS including serious allegations of professional incompetence, use of improper medical practices, attempts to cover up wrongdoing and in some cases he named and criticised specific individuals.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Edwin Jesudason (‘C’), was a paediatric surgeon who was an honorary consultant working in the Department of Paediatric Surgery (‘DPS’) in the respondent NHS trust from 2006 until he resigned in 2012. Between 2009 and 2014 he made a series of allegations to the Trust, regulatory bodies and the media where he alleged fundamental failings in the operation of the DPS including serious allegations of professional incompetence, use of improper medical practices, attempts to cover up wrongdoing and in some cases he named and criticised specific individuals.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘A doctor who lost his job after making whistleblowing disclosures has been awarded more than £857,000 by an Employment Tribunal.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘ABC v St George’s Healthcare Trust and others [2020] EWHC 455 (QB). The High Court has ruled that the health authorities owed a duty of care to the daughter of their patient who suffered from the hereditary neurodegenerative order Huntington’s Chorea, to inform her about his condition. But in the circumstances, Yip J concluded that the duty was not breached and that causation had not been established.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th February 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘As all legal practitioners know, good experts win cases. Conversely, bad experts can not only lose cases, but sometimes they can cause a bad case to enter
or remain in existence, wasting time, effort and money. Such was the case in Thimmaya v Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust, where, in a judgment that will understandably alarm the medico-legal world, the County Court decided that a third party costs order should be made against the Claimant’s expert witness, in the sum of £88,801.68.’
Hailsham Chambers, 21st February 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024