header-logo header-logo

11 March 2016
Issue: 7690 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Vicarious liability

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

Browne Jacobson—Simone Ketchell

Browne Jacobson—Simone Ketchell

Browne Jacobson adds top property litigation Partner in record real estate expansion

Fieldfisher—Megan Goodyer

Fieldfisher—Megan Goodyer

Fieldfisher expands Personal Injury team with impressive partner from Stewarts

Clyde & Co—Jack Holling

Clyde & Co—Jack Holling

Global firm strengthens insurance practice with appointment of partner

NEWS
Should every solicitor found to have acted dishonestly face automatic striking off? The answer, argues John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke LLP in NLJ this week, is no 
Winning an arbitral award against a state is one thing; enforcing it is another
Can government success in court tell us whether the rule of law is healthy? 
Poorly drafted dispute resolution clauses can trigger litigation before the real dispute is even addressed
As cryptocurrency becomes mainstream, family lawyers are increasingly confronting the challenges it creates on divorce
back-to-top-scroll