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

Delimiting Vicarious Liability in the Context of Independent Contractors – 12 King’s Bench Walk

‘The law around vicarious liability has been “on the move” since at least the 2012 landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 (the “Christian Brothers case”). However, after years of expansion, the Supreme Court has now held in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 that liability will not always be imposed for the acts of an independent contractor.’

Full Story

12 King's Bench Walk, 3rd April 2020

Source: www.12kbw.co.uk

Vicarious Liability – the move is over – Hailsham Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 9th April 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc v Various Claimants & Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants – Old Square Chambers

‘The Supreme Court has handed down two new judgments addressing the legal limits of vicarious liability in employment and non-employment cases.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, April 2020

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk

On The Move – Ropewalk Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 14th April 2020

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

High Court judges order indemnity costs over ADR failures – Litigation Futures

‘The courts are getting harder on parties who fail to follow directions to try alternative dispute resolution (ADR), with judges imposing indemnity costs in two cases in recent weeks.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 16th April 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Vicarious liability – ‘on the move’ no longer – Parklane Plowden

‘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.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden, 7th April 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants – Supreme Court clarifies the test for vicarious liability – 12 King’s Bench Walk

‘In a much-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court addresses the scope of an employer’s vicarious liability for acts by its employees, in particular the “misunderstandings” that have arisen since its previous landmark decision in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11.’

Full Story

12 King's Bench Walk, 2nd April 2020

Source: www.12kbw.co.uk

Vicarious liability (and data protection): two cases – Six Pump Court

‘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.’

Full Story

Six Pump Court, 8th April 2020

Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk

Another skirmish on the boundaries of vicarious liability: data protection this time – UK Human Rights Blog

‘This appeal concerned the circumstances in which an employer can be held to be vicariously liable for wrongs committed by its employees, and also whether vicarious liability may arise for breaches by an employee of duties imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”).’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 7th April 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com