header-logo header-logo

31 March 2020 / Dean Armstrong KC , Shyam Thakerar
Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Wrongful disclosure & vicarious liability

The Supreme Court’s decision in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (Appellant) v Various Claimants (Respondents) reaffirms the fundamental tenets of vicarious liability despite the employer's appeal being allowed, say Dean Armstrong QC & Shyam Thakerar

 

  • Employers have very little space to hide when it comes to data protection breaches and, unless they have suffered at the hands of a vindictive employee, will most likely face the consequences of such a breach by their employees.
  • The Supreme Court has not changed the law with regard to vicarious liability or made it less likely for employers to be found vicariously liable for the acts of their employees when acting in the course of their employment.

In the judgment handed down today (2 April 2020) in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (Appellant) v Various Claimants (Respondents) [2020] UKSC 12, [2020] All ER (D) 02 (Apr) the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision to find that Morrisons was not vicariously liable for the actions of a rogue employee in deliberately disclosing

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

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll