The claimant was a site fitter employed by Roltech Engineering Ltd and he was contracted out to the defendant. The issue arose in September 2014 when the claimant was injured as a result of a practical joke on site. This involved the use of a pellet target which caused an explosion and led to the claimant suffering a perforated eardrum, hearing loss and tinnitus. The issue for the court was whether he could claim damages against the employer.   Both the County Court and the High Court held that the employer was not vicariously liable. 

The claimant brought an appeal to the Court of Appeal citing that there was an error of law in the application of the ‘sufficiently close connection’ test in relation to vicarious liability.  The Court of Appeal stated that the unauthorised act, the use of the pellet target, must either have been authorised or be within the mode of doing something which is authorised. It was held that there was no basis in determining that it had been authorised by the employer.  The pellet target was not work equipment and there was aspect of the work which required for it to be hit. As a result, the employer could not be regarded as being vicariously liable.  

In terms of the respondent’s duty of care to the claimant it was held that there had to be a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury for any liability to arise. There had been some tensions between the employees that had been reported but they did not demonstrate any threat of violence or anything of that ilk.  Accordingly, there was no foreseeable risk of any injury being caused by physical violence or as occurred in this case, through a practical joke.  The Court of Appeal concluded that even if there was a duty of care there could be no breach on the basis that there was no foreseeable risk of harm.  Accordingly, the claimant’s case was dismissed.