Richard Scorer examines the extent of vicarious liability for sexual abuse
The extent of vicarious liability of organisations for sexual assaults committed by their employees, or by non-employees over whom they exercise control, has been examined by the courts in a series of recent cases.
The latest authority is the decision of the Supreme Court in Catholic Child Welfare Society and others (Appellants) v Various Claimants (FC) and The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools and others (Respondents) [2012] UKSC 56. As Lord Phillips said in his lead judgment, “the law of vicarious liability is on the move”, and has received recent consideration by appellate courts not only in the UK, but in Canada and Australia. Where does this latest case leave us?
Background
Following the decision of the House of Lords in Lister v Hesley Hall [2002] 1 AC 215, organisations can be vicariously liable for sexual misconduct by their employees where there is a sufficiently “close connection” between the employment and the acts complained of. This landmark decision overturned previous authorities
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
