‘A woman who won a “landmark” legal battle against a council after being abused by foster parents as a child has urged more victims to speak out.’
BBC News, 19th October 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In Armes (Appellant) v Nottinghamshire County Council (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 60, the Supreme Court held Nottinghamshire County Council were vicariously liable for the physical, emotional and sexual abuse committed by foster parents to the appellant (Armes) during her time in foster care. The local authority can be held vicariously liable only in situations involving placements with foster carers. Zoe Fleetwood, solicitor and partner, and Hannah Duddridge, paralegal, from Dawson Cornwell, highlight that such vicarious liability does not extend to the local authority in situations involving child placements with family members.’
Family Law, 19th October 2017
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Local authorities face a significant increase in claims after a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that councils can be held vicariously liable for wrongful actions of foster parents to a child in foster care.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th October 2017
Source: localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A woman who was abused as a child by her foster parents has won a Supreme Court battle against the local authority responsible for her care.’
BBC News, 18th October 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In Various Claimants v Barclays Bank PLC [2017] EWHC 1929 (QB), the High Court (The Hon Mrs Justice Davies DBE) held that Barclays Bank was vicariously liable in respect of alleged sexual assaults perpetrated by a Doctor, not employed by Barclays, who conducted medical assessments and examinations on prospective employees of the Bank.’
Henderson Chambers, 10th August 2017
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Adam Ohringer considers the recent judgment of Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc [2017] EWHC 1929 (QB) and its implications on vicarious liability.’
Cloisters, 10th August 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘US-style ‘vicarious liability’ and new ‘failure to prevent’ offences are under consideration in long-awaited government proposals to reform the law on corporate criminal liability published today. Initial reaction from corporate crime specialists was divided, with some lawyers seeing the proposals as a climb-down while others described them as a new burden on business.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 13th January 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A review of the High Court decision in the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Limited [2016] EWHC 3104 (QB) and a useful summary of the principles governing vicarious liability.’
Zenith PI Blog, 9th December 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Caroline Wood recently successfully represented the defendant local council in respect of a claim arising from an assault by a teaching assistant on a lunchtime supervisor, both of whom were employees at the same school.’
Park Square Barristers, 25th October 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘An employer appealed a first instance decision in which it was held vicariously liable for the actions of employee.’
Zenith PI Blog, 26th October 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘“The law of vicarious liability is on the move”, so began Lord Reed in his judgment in Cox -v- Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.’
Zenith PI, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Two important Supreme Court judgments concerning vicarious liability were handed down last week. Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets [2016] UKSC 11 affirms the “close connection” test set out in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 and rejects the formulation of a new test for vicarious liability based on “representative capacity”. Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10 extends the sorts of relationships where a defendant can be made vicariously liable for the conduct of an individual and evaluates Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 (the ‘Christian Brothers’ case).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 8th March 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A supermarket was “vicariously liable” for the actions of its employee, who punched a customer in a seemingly unprovoked attack, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd March 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Court of Appeal has handed down a key ruling on the liability of councils for foster care abuse, concluding that local authorities do not owe a child in such care a non-delegable duty.’
Local Government Lawyer, 12th November 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Graham v Commercial Bodyworks Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 47; [2015] WLR (D) 50
‘Where an employee, while at work, had perpetrated against his friend and colleague what was apparently intended to be a prank, by putting highly inflammable thinning agent on to his clothes and then igniting them, the employer was not vicariously liable.’
WLR Daily, 5th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Claims involving multiple defendants are often complex in terms of the facts, the law and the expert medical evidence. They are claims that we all have some experience of, and the issues involved have no doubt troubled us all to a greater or lesser degree at times.’
Cloisters, 3rd October 2014
Source: www.cloisters.com
Mohamud v W M Morrison Supermarkets plc [2014] EWCA Civ 116; [2014] WLR (D) 68
‘Where an employee’s duties included interaction with customers but did not involve any element of keeping public order or exercising authority over them, the employer was not vicariously liable for an assault by the employee on a customer. The mere fact of contact between a sales assistant and a customer, which was plainly authorised by an employer, was not of itself sufficient to fix the employer with vicarious liability.’
WLR Daily, 13th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Is Fairchild a Leading case of the Common Law? (PDF)
Per Laleng, Inner Temple Academic Fellow, University of Kent
The Inner Temple, 20th January 2014
Source: www.innertemple.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2019