Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2018]
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2018]
Published on: 18/10/2018
Issues Covered: Discipline Health and Safety
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
John Taggart BL
John Taggart BL
Background

The claimant was employed as a sales manager. In December 2011, the respondent held a Christmas party which the court noted is an event often “dreaded by some and an annual highlight for others”.

Alcohol was unsurprisingly a feature of the party at a golf club and the festivities continued to a nearby hotel where many of the staff were staying. At the hotel, the claimant was assaulted by the respondent’s MD and suffered serious brain damage. The sole issue was whether the company was vicariously liable for the actions of the MD.

The High Court had previously held that only had the assault happened at the golf club, the firm would probably have been held liable. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It found that there was sufficient connection between the MD’s “field of activities” and the assault to render it fair that the respondent should be vicariously liable for his actions. Lord Justice Irwin noted that the case "arose because of the way in which [the MD] chose to exert his authority, indeed his dominance as the only real decision-maker, in the company.” The appeal was allowed.

Practical Lessons

The Court of Appeal made clear that this case involved rather unusual facts. It also noted that liability will not arise “merely because there is an argument about work matters between colleagues, which leads to an assault, even when one colleague is markedly more senior than another.”

The court was quick to stress that the decision is by no means an authority for the proposition that employers automatically “become insurers for violent or other tortious acts by their employees." What clearly tipped the balance here was the fact that the MD exerted his authority at the post-party drinks and that his “position of seniority persisted”.

While the Court of Appeal noted the fact-sensitive nature of such cases, one clear principle does emerge: the misuse of authority can occur out of hours or even when the parties are off-duty, particularly by someone in a senior position.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2214.html 

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 18/10/2018