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

Comply with ADR duty or risk costs sanction – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The recent decision of DSN v Blackpool Football Club Limited [2020] EWHC 670 (QB) illustrates the need for litigating parties to consider and engage with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures in trying to resolve their disputes.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 4th May 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Vicarious Liability: whose liability is it anyway? – 4 New Square

‘On 1 April 2020 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 (“Barclays”) and MW Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 (“Morrison”) – the latest in the recent line of cases focussed on the nature, scope and development of the doctrine of vicarious liability.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 20th April 2020

Source: www.4newsquare.com

EXE v Governors of the Royal Naval School [2020] EWHC 596 QB – 39 Essex Chambers

‘The Defendants employed a 30 year old man “Hughes” as a kitchen porter from 15 October 1990 to 10 July 1991 at their school for girls. He was provided with accommodation on the school premises. The Defendants were not aware that Hughes had a criminal record, including offences of indecent assault on a female and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 15. Had the Defendants been aware of these convictions, Hughes would not have been offered employment.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 22nd April 2020

Source: www.39essex.com

A Frolic of His Own – Ropewalk Chambers

‘Exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis is interpreting a text’s meaning in accordance with the author’s context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their own subjective interpretation on a text. Both have more than a passing similarity to the common law doctrine of precedent and the techniques of statutory interpretation.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 17th April 2020

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

Rowing back on vicarious liability – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Two judgments from the Supreme Court have set restrictions on the scope of vicarious liability. In Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 the test was whether the tortfeasor was in fact the ‘employee’ of the employer. The claimants alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse by a GP hired by the bank to carry out medical assessments of employees.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 20th April 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Case Comment: Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 – UKSC Blog

‘Alaina Wadsworth, Chris Horsefield and Ben Brown, who all work within the Insurance & Reinsurance Group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court earlier this month, in the matter of Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 20th April 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Morrison: It May Not Be Over Yet: Vicarious Liability Explained by the Supreme Court (Liability of Joint Controllers Unaffected) – The 36 Group

‘In Morrison the Supreme Court was at pains to re-state and explain a previous judgment on an employer’s vicarious liability for employees that had been misinterpreted and misapplied both at trial and in the Court of Appeal. What was not examined at any level was the primary liability of joint data controllers, as regulated by the General Data Protection Regulation. This article looks at what the Supreme Court said about vicarious liability and the position of joint controllers.’

Full Story

The 36 Group, 14th April 2020

Source: 36group.co.uk