A 3rd party has legal responsibility for the actions of
another.
Vicarious Liability Commonly seen when an employer is liable for a tort
committed by an employee.
Deeper Pockets.
Was a Tort committed?
In Barclays Bank v VC Lady Hale
3 Q’s asked whether the tortfeasor was
Was the Tortfeasor an in a relationship akin to
employee? Testing employment:
whether an 1) Control test – If the employer
had the right to control what the
Was the Tortfeasor in the employee employee did and the way it was
course of employment? done (Mersey Docks v Coggins)
2) Integration test – How
integrated an employee’s work was
and if it was just work accessory to
business (Stevenson Jordan and
Employer usually liable for: Harrison v McDonalds and Evans)
Wrongful acts authorised by
3) Economic Reality / Multiples test
employer, and
– Looks at multiple factors such as
Salmond Test ownership of equipment, tax and
Acts which are wrong ways flexibility / autonomy (Ready Mix
of doing something Concrete v Minister of Pensions)
authorised by employer. 4) Mutuality of Obligations – was
If Doubt there an obligation for employer to
provide work and an obligation for
the tortfeasor to accept that work?
What function or field of
activities has been entrusted to Lady Hale in Barclays Bank v Various
the employee by the employer? Claimants “Where it is clear that the
Close Connection Test tortfeasor is carrying on his own
(Mohamud v Morrison independent business it is not necessary
to consider the five incidents”
Supermarkets)
Was there a sufficient connection between
the position the employee was employed
and the wrongful conduct? (Morrison
Supermarkets v VC [Personal motive means
close connection cannot be established]).
Deduction of Wages:
If not in course of employment,
then employee is on a ‘frolic of - Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
their own’ (Parke, B in Joel v Employer can recover any moneys by a
Morison) deduction in wages
another.
Vicarious Liability Commonly seen when an employer is liable for a tort
committed by an employee.
Deeper Pockets.
Was a Tort committed?
In Barclays Bank v VC Lady Hale
3 Q’s asked whether the tortfeasor was
Was the Tortfeasor an in a relationship akin to
employee? Testing employment:
whether an 1) Control test – If the employer
had the right to control what the
Was the Tortfeasor in the employee employee did and the way it was
course of employment? done (Mersey Docks v Coggins)
2) Integration test – How
integrated an employee’s work was
and if it was just work accessory to
business (Stevenson Jordan and
Employer usually liable for: Harrison v McDonalds and Evans)
Wrongful acts authorised by
3) Economic Reality / Multiples test
employer, and
– Looks at multiple factors such as
Salmond Test ownership of equipment, tax and
Acts which are wrong ways flexibility / autonomy (Ready Mix
of doing something Concrete v Minister of Pensions)
authorised by employer. 4) Mutuality of Obligations – was
If Doubt there an obligation for employer to
provide work and an obligation for
the tortfeasor to accept that work?
What function or field of
activities has been entrusted to Lady Hale in Barclays Bank v Various
the employee by the employer? Claimants “Where it is clear that the
Close Connection Test tortfeasor is carrying on his own
(Mohamud v Morrison independent business it is not necessary
to consider the five incidents”
Supermarkets)
Was there a sufficient connection between
the position the employee was employed
and the wrongful conduct? (Morrison
Supermarkets v VC [Personal motive means
close connection cannot be established]).
Deduction of Wages:
If not in course of employment,
then employee is on a ‘frolic of - Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
their own’ (Parke, B in Joel v Employer can recover any moneys by a
Morison) deduction in wages
