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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll