Research Briefing: Corporate criminal liability in England and Wales – House of Commons Library

Posted February 11th, 2022 in company law, criminal justice, news, parliament, vicarious liability by tracey

‘This briefing discusses the circumstances in which corporates can commit crimes in England and Wales, setting out recent developments and proposals for reform.’

Full Story

House of Commons Library, 9th February 2022

Source: commonslibrary.parliament.uk

Rattan v Hughes – Case Note – Old Square Chambers

‘Are dental practices which service NHS General Dental Services Contracts liable for negligence by associate dentists whom they engage?’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 4th February 2022

Source: oldsquare.co.uk

High Court rejects claim council was vicariously liable after employee on “frolic of her own” leaked social care records – Local Government Lawyer

Posted January 31st, 2022 in data protection, employment, families, local government, news, vicarious liability by tracey

‘Luton Borough Council was not vicariously liable for the acts of an employee who leaked sensitive data about a woman and her children, in what a High Court judge called a “classic case” of the employee being on a “frolic of her own”.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 28th January 2022

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Barry Bennell abuse claim falls on limitation and vicarious liability – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted January 20th, 2022 in child abuse, news, sexual offences, sport, vicarious liability by tracey

‘TVZ and Ors v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2022] EWHC 7 (QB). Barry Bennell was a football coach who sexually abused a number of boys in the 1980s. He is serving a sentence of 34 years imprisonment and, at the age of 68, is likely to die in jail. The Claimants in this case were his victims. Mr Justice Johnson described each as a ‘remarkable’ men, courageously giving evidence and some waiving their rights to anonymity determined to do everything they could to encourage others to come forward and ensure Bennell was prosecuted and, ultimately, convicted. The issue in this case was not the veracity of their account – the judge made is explicitly clear they were believed and the Defendant did not question the fact the abuse had occurred. The dispute was whether civil liability attached to Manchester City football club for the abuse committed by Bennell. There were two fundamental hurdles for the Claimants: limitation and vicarious liability. On the particular facts, the court found that they failed to overcome both.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 19th January 2022

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Barry Bennell: Men lose case against Manchester City over abuse – BBC News

Posted January 10th, 2022 in child abuse, children, employment, news, sexual offences, sport, vicarious liability by tracey

‘Eight men who sued Manchester City after saying they were abused by paedophile Barry Bennell more than 30 years ago have lost a High Court fight.’

Full Story

BBC News, 10th January 2022

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Barry Bennell: Victim secures settlement from holiday park – BBC News

‘A man groomed by paedophile Barry Bennell while on holiday at Butlin’s has secured a five-figure settlement from the company’s previous owners.’

Full Story

BBC News, 5th January 2022

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Vicarious liability for sexual abuse again: Hugh Kennedy – Law & Religion UK

Posted December 16th, 2021 in clergy, news, Scotland, sexual offences, teachers, trusts, vicarious liability by sally

‘In Hugh Kennedy against (First) The Right Reverend Paul Bonnici, (Second) The Right Reverend James Warren Cuthbert Madden and (Third) Denis Alexander [2021] ScotCS CSOH 106, the pursuer brought an action for personal injury as a consequence of alleged sexual and physical abuse which, he averred, he had suffered while he was a boarder in the mid-1970s at Fort Augustus Boarding School. The school, which was run by a Benedictine community, had closed nearly 30 years ago, the trust associated with the community’s Abbey had been wound up some ten years ago and the then trustees may have been discharged. The trustees at the material time were all dead. The pursuer averred that, nevertheless, the then trustees had held indemnity insurance in respect of his claim and he sued the two surviving trustees for the purposes of meeting his claim from the trust estate comprised of the (presumed) right of indemnity under that insurance [1]. He claimed that the third defender, Denis Alexander, a monk and teacher at the school, had been his principal abuser and that he had also been abused by two lay teachers, both now dead [2]. In July 2021, Alexander had been convicted inter alia of lewd and libidinous conduct against the pursuer [4] and sentenced to four years and five months imprisonment.’

Full Story

Law & Religion UK, 14th December 2021

Source: lawandreligionuk.com

Ruling highlights risk of personal liability of partners in dental practices – OUT-LAW.com

Posted September 16th, 2021 in contracts, dentists, negligence, news, partnerships, self-employment, vicarious liability by tracey

‘A recent preliminary judgment by the High Court in London provides a stark reminder of the potential exposure for personal liability faced by partners in dental practices and the need for appropriate contractual protections to mitigate those risks.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 15th September 2021

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

Vicarious Liability and the Non-Delegable Duty in the Context of Dental Negligence Claims: Hughes v Rattan – Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog

‘For several years in the 2000s and 2010s, the law relating to vicarious liability and non-fault liability more generally was “on the move”. However, in the last couple of years, the case law dealing with non-fault liability has been far less fruitful for claimants (e.g. Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13; SKX v Manchester City Council [2021] EWHC 782 (QB)). So the decision of Heather Williams QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in the case of Hughes v Rattan [2021] EWHC 2032 (QB) provides an early sign that the tide may be turning back in favour of claimants, at least in the context of medical negligence claims.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 7th September 2021

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

Dental Negligence, Vicarious Liability and Non-Delegable Duty: A Test Case – UK Human Rights Blog

‘In Hughes v Rattan [2021] EWHC 2032 (QB), the High Court was asked to answer the following question. Was the owner of a dental practice liable for the dental negligence of a self-employed dentist engaged to work in the practice? The claim arose from NHS care provided by three different associate dentists. The preliminary issue was whether the practice owner was liable by reason of: a) a non-delegable duty of care; or b) vicarious liability. The Court answered: “yes” and “yes”.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 6th August 2021

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Getting everything you bargained for: X v Kuoni Travel Limited [2021] UKSC 34 determines the scope of ‘holiday arrangements’ in Package Travel claims – Devereux Chambers

‘In an important case for package travel claims, the Supreme Court has clarified that a broad approach should be taken to determining the scope of the services provided under a package holiday contract. The tour operator is liable for the performance of ancillary services which are necessary to provide a holiday of the required standard.’

Full Story

Devereux Chambers, 3rd August 2021

Source: www.devereuxchambers.co.uk

Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation vicariously liable – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted March 25th, 2021 in causation, news, psychiatric damage, rape, vicarious liability by sally

‘In The Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB [2021] EWCA Civ 356, the Court of Appeal has offered further guidance on vicarious liability following Supreme Court decisions last year in VM Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 25th March 2021

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Vicarious liability for rape: Barry Congregation of JWs – Law & Religion UK

‘In Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB [2021] EWCA Civ 356, Mrs B and her husband had attended the Kingdom Hall in Barry and in 1986 Mrs B was baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness. They became friendly with another couple, Mark and Mary Sewell. Mark Sewell was a ministerial servant and subsequently became an elder. On 30 April 1990, Sewell raped Mrs B in a room in his house – and that fact was undisputed. In 2014, Sewell was convicted of raping Mrs B and of indecently assaulting a girl aged under 14, CXC, and another individual and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. Mrs B sued the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the Trustees of the Barry Congregation and, at first instance, Chamberlain J held them vicariously liable for her rape. (He also determined that it was equitable to extend the time to allow the claims to proceed, pursuant to s.33 Limitation Act 1980). He awarded Mrs B £62,000 for psychiatric injuries attributable to the rape. On appeal, the defendants disputed.’

Full Story

Law & Religion UK, 24th March 2021

Source: lawandreligionuk.com

Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Training – Pump Court Chambers

‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently prescribed annual booster / refresher training for employers on Equality and Diversity in order to ensure that it is effective in eliminating harassment in the workplace.’

Full Story

Pump Court Chambers, 17th February 2021

Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com

Misuse of Private Information: A Tort in its Infancy – Pump Court Chambers

‘There has been an avalanche of commentary on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12. The case has provided some welcome guidance on vicarious liability in the wake of the earlier decision of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, and also represents the first class action of its kind in the UK.’

Full Story

Pump Court Chambers, 23rd July 2020

Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com

Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants: further blurring boundaries in employment status? – by Anna Williams – UK Human Rights Blog

‘In a judgment handed down on 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of Nicola Davies J (as she then was) and a unanimous Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal on the ground that no vicarious liability can lie for the acts of an independent contractor: Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (“Barclays”).’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 28th July 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

1COR Quarterly Medical Law Review – Spring 2020 – Issue 5 – 1 Crown Office Row

‘Welcome to the fifth issue of the Quarterly Medical Law Review, brought to you by the barristers at 1 Crown Office Row.’

Full Story

1 Crown Office Row, 15th May 2020

Source: www.1cor.com

What Morrisons means for employer liability – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted May 21st, 2020 in causation, data protection, news, Supreme Court, vicarious liability by sally

‘The Supreme Court recently ruled that Morrison Supermarkets was not vicariously liable for a data breach committed maliciously by a former employee who disclosed employee payroll data online (WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12). The judgment clarified that the test for vicarious liability is whether the acts committed by the employee were ‘so closely connected’ with the acts that they were authorised to carry out by their employer that such acts ‘can fairly and properly be regarded as done’ by the employee acting in the ordinary course of his or her employment.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 18th May 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Is the law of vicarious liability still ‘on the move’? Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 – 3PB

Posted May 12th, 2020 in assault, doctors, news, sexual offences, vicarious liability by sally

‘The 126 claimants in this case were all employees of Barclays Bank who, at the start of their employment between the late 1960s and early 1980s, were required to undergo a medical examination. Examinations were carried out by Dr Bates (now deceased), a general practitioner who was not an employee of the Bank but engaged as an independent contractor to provide this service, and did so at his home. The Claimants alleged that they were sexually assaulted by Dr Bates while undergoing this examination and brought a group action against the Bank for compensation. A preliminary issue was whether Barclays could be vicariously liable for his actions.’

Full Story

3PB, May 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

No vicarious liability for a ‘personal vendetta’: WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc (Appellant) v Various Claimants (Respondents) – [2020] UKSC 12 – 3PB

‘Morrisons, the Appellant by the time this case reached the Supreme Court, are, of course, a well-known national chain of supermarkets. The Respondents in this case were approximately 9,000 employees or former employees of Morrisons.’

Full Story

3PB, May 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk