‘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
‘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”).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.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
‘This appeal concerns the circumstances in which an employer is 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.’
UKSC Blog, 1st April 2020
Source: ukscblog.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
‘The UK’s highest court has ruled that Morrisons should not be held liable for the criminal act of an employee with a grudge who leaked the payroll data of about 100,000 members of staff.’
The Guardian, 1st April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘t’s Christmas party season, which for many workers means pulling on their festive jumpers and having a few glasses of warm prosecco with colleagues at the office bash. But the fun can sometimes leave bosses with more than just a headache the following day, when the behaviour of their employees lands them in court.’
The Guardian, 19th December 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A claim relating to an unlawful trespass to the Claimant’s person that occurred on 26 October 2014. During the course of their work, three sub-contractors engaged on a construction site by First Defendant, namely the Claimant, Kieran Fowler and Alan Fowler, became involved in an argument concerning their work. The incident started as verbal argument on a scaffold and culminated a few minutes later (off the scaffold) with Kieran Fowler striking the Claimant violently over the head with a scaffolding pole. As a result, the Claimant sustained a right-sided subdural haemorrhage, a subarachnoid haemorrhage, and extensive skull fractures. Following the incident Kieran Fowler was convicted of causing Grievous Bodily Harm and sentenced to 12 years in prison. The Claimant’s case was that the First Defendant were vicariously liable for the actions of Kieran Fowler. The Second Defendant was the insurer of the First Defendant.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 20th November 2019
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘On 6 and 7 November 2019, the Supreme Court will hear Morrison’s appeal from the ruling of the Court of Appeal, in a data breach claim brought by 5,500 employees. The claim raises important questions of employee liability for the actions of rogue employees. It is one of a series of large cases which are working their way through the Courts (including claims against Google and British Airways), which each illustrate the increasing risks businesses face from group claims/class actions, arising from data protection breaches.’
UKSC Blog, 5th November 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Charles Pigott examines an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling that racially offensive Facebook posting was not done in the course of employment.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th August 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In Otuo v Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain [2019] EWHC 1349 (QB), Mr Otuo had been “disfellowshipped” by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and an announcement to that effect had been made at a meeting of the Wimbledon Congregation [1 & 2]. Further, during a meeting at which he sought to be reinstated, he had recorded surreptitiously one of those present making what he alleged to be a defamatory statement.’
Law and Religion UK, 20th June 2019
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘Assessing the demands of social justice in cases involving vicarious liability is “not a one-way street” for accident victims, a High Court judge has said.’
Litigation Futures, 11th April 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal has overturned a finding of the High Court of fraudulent misrepresentation against a postal equipment supplier, on the grounds that it was not ‘vicariously liable’ for the dishonesty of its agent.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th November 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Organisations that hold and process personal data have already had to contemplate the prospect of €20 million fines for not matching up to the requirements of the GDPR. Now the Court of Appeal has given a ruling that presents another type of exposure risk where personal data is concerned. Upholding a High Court decision given in November 2017, this second ruling confirms that an employer can be liable for the actions of a rogue employee in exposing the private information of thousands of other members of staff.’
Technology Law Update, 26th October 2018
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘This case was heard recently in the Court Of Appeal before Lord Justice Erwin, Lord Justice Moylan and Lady Justice Asplin. Lady Justice Asplin gave the leading judgment
with which the Lord Justices agreed. However, Lord Justice Erwin was keen to emphasise at paragraph 37, “how unusual are these facts and how limited will be the parallels to this case”.’
Zenith PI, 23rd October 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Large-scale civil litigation is one of the developing contours of data protection law. Last week’s judgment in Lloyd v Google – a novel representative action based on allegedly unlawful processing activities – is one illustration. When it comes to group litigation on the back of a data breach, our best illustration thus far is the groundbreaking group action against Morrisons.’
Panopticon, 22nd October 2018
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Morrisons has lost its challenge to a High Court ruling that it is liable for a data breach that saw thousands of its employees’ details posted online.’
BBC News, 22nd October 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Employers do not owe their employees a duty of care in the way they defend claims that they are vicariously liable for actions of those employees, the UK Supreme Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th July 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2020