header-logo header-logo

Vicarious liability

11 March 2016
Issue: 7690 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] All ER (D) 19 (Mar)

The Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Court of Appeal and held that the “close connection” test used in establishing vicarious liability was correct and would not be improved by a change in vocabulary. Applying that test to the present case meant that the employee’s assault on the claimant customer had brought the claimant’s case within the close connection test so as to properly enable a finding of vicarious liability against the defendant employer.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll