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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll