header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 March 2020 / Dean Armstrong KC , Shyam Thakerar
Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Wrongful disclosure & vicarious liability

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll