header-logo header-logo

12 August 2020 / Christopher Johnson , Frederick Powell
Issue: 7899 / Categories: Features , Employment , Vicarious liability
printer mail-detail

Vicarious liability: Striking a balance

25796
Post-Barclays Bank, Christopher Johnson & Frederick Powell provide an update on vicarious liability for practitioners & employers

In brief

  • Barclays Bank v Various Claimants: the principle authority on the relationship between the tortfeasor and the defendant—one of two dependent factors of whether vicarious liability will be imposed in a particular case.

Whether vicarious liability will be imposed in a particular case depends on two factors: (1) the relationship between the tortfeasor and the defendant; and (2) the connection between that relationship and the wrongdoing. The principle authority on the first factor is now the decision in Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, [2020] All ER (D) 04 (Apr) in which the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and held that Barclays was not vicariously liable for sexual assaults perpetrated by a self-employed doctor whom they had engaged to carry out medical examinations on prospective employees. That decision, and its implications, is considered below.

The position

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll