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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll