‘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.’
3PB, May 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 4th May 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
4 New Square, 20th April 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘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.’
39 Essex Chambers, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘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.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 17th April 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 20th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
UKSC Blog, 20th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘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.’
The 36 Group, 14th April 2020
Source: 36group.co.uk
‘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.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘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
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 16th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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
‘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.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 2nd April 2020
Source: www.12kbw.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
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2022