Post-Barclays Bank, Christopher Johnson & Frederick Powell provide an update on vicarious liability for practitioners & employers
In brief
- Barclays Bank v Various Claimants: the principle authority on the relationship between the tortfeasor and the defendant—one of two dependent factors of whether vicarious liability will be imposed in a particular case.
Whether vicarious liability will be imposed in a particular case depends on two factors: (1) the relationship between the tortfeasor and the defendant; and (2) the connection between that relationship and the wrongdoing. The principle authority on the first factor is now the decision in Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, [2020] All ER (D) 04 (Apr) in which the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and held that Barclays was not vicariously liable for sexual assaults perpetrated by a self-employed doctor whom they had engaged to carry out medical examinations on prospective employees. That decision, and its implications, is considered below.
The position before Barclays Bank
Prior to the decision in Barclays
