Legal
Sarah Burke
Court of Appeal decision The Court of Appeal said the company was responsible for the actions of its MD, even though the assault took place some hours after the end of the Christmas party at an impromptu gathering. This was because Mr Major’s role gave him power and authority over his staff which he grossly misused. He was not a “fellow reveller” and had used his position as MD to berate his staff and to attack Mr Bellman. This put the blame firmly at the door of his employers.
Implications The High Court said the company was not responsible and found that the drinks were separate from the Christmas party itself and at a separate location. The High Court also concluded that the incident had arisen in the context of “entirely voluntary and personal choices” by those present to engage in a drinking session and there was therefore insufficient connection between Mr Major’s role as MD and the assault. The fact that the attack was triggered by a work-related discussion was not sufficient to bring the encounter within the course of Mr Major’s employment. Mr Bellman appealed.
This decision does not mean that employers will automatically become liable for the violent or other blameworthy conduct of their staff but they might do if: • the perpetrator is in a position of power within the organisation; and/or • there is a strong connection between that position and his/her wrongful conduct. In other words, if an assault (or other blameworthy conduct) takes place as a result of managerial authority, however misguided, it won’t really matter if the incident takes place at or after a work event.
Further decisions over the last few years on vicarious liability have demonstrated that Employers can run the risk of being held vicariously liable even where the act us unforseen. By way of further example in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc 2016, the Supreme Court held the supermarket vicariously liable for an employee’s unprovoked violent assault on a customer at one of its petrol stations. In this case the court found that there was a sufficiently close connection between the assault and the employee’s job of attending to customers, such that the employer should be held vicariously liable
Tips It can be difficult to maintain usual standards of behaviour at social events, particularly Christmas parties, where alcohol is flowing and employees let their hair down and relax. It can be even harder for an employer to maintain standards where employees have impromptu gatherings. Notwithstanding this, it is best to set the tone before any work social events and to provide a clear policy setting out the standards of behaviour you expect of your staff. It doesn’t have to be long or complicated and it may be helpful to remind employees that social events may be seen as an “extension of the workplace”. It is also sensible to limit the amount of free alcohol available at social events. If your managers are encouraging staff to drink to excess, you are more likely to be responsible for any poor behaviour that results.
Sarah Burke Associate employment
www.sussexbusinessgroup.co.uk 17