Despite fears, the liability floodgates have not opened post Majrowski. Richard Scorer explains why
One of the arguments called upon by the insurance industry when claimant personal injury lawyers try to expand the boundaries of tort law is the “floodgates” argument: surely, it is argued, an expansion of liability in such-and-such case will lead to the courts being clogged with unmeritorious claims.
The “floodgates” argument was deployed in 2006 when the House of Lords heard the case of Majrowski v Guys and St Thomas’s NHS Trust, [2006] UKHL 34, [2006] 4 All ER 395. Majrowski was the case in which the House of Lords held that an employer could be vicariously liable (in civil law) for breaches of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) committed by an employee in the course of his employment. Four years on, have the floodgates opened?
Majrowski, who was employed by the trust, alleged homophobic bullying and intimidation by his departmental manager. He claimed damages against the trust pursuant to s 3 of the Act, for distress
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
