In this case an animal research worker at the charity had been lifted and dropped by a drunk visiting Cambridge University scientist. Ms Shelbourne sustained serious back injuries. She sued her employer, rather than the visiting scientist.

It appears that the visiting scientist had lifted (without injury) other party attendees and this fact was used by the appellant to argue that injury was reasonably foreseeable. Actually, the charity had carried out a risk assessment prior to the party but had focussed on ensuring that no one returned to the research areas and on matters such as uneven surfaces.

Readers will be aware of the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2214, which we reviewed in October 2018 and where the company employer was held liable for injuries sustained by an employee after being assaulted at the Christmas party by the MD of the firm.

The High Court distinguished the present case from Bellman in a number of areas but, in particular finding that the visiting scientist was not an employee of the charity (never mind the owner) and the party was organised by volunteers at their behest:

"CRUK, through its volunteers, organised the Christmas party. CRUK’s motivation in doing so was not primarily, or even significantly, to derive a benefit for its operations. It was, in reality, responding to the expectation of its members of staff that this is what their employer does for them at Christmas... I echo the Recorder’s view that she deserves the court’s sympathy. However, the ascertainment of what social justice requires, which lies at the heart of the law on vicarious liability, is not a journey down a one-way street. The desirability of enabling those who have suffered injury at the hands of others to recover adequate financial compensation needs to be balanced against the wider social consequences which may ensue from achieving this result through the imposition of vicarious liability."

The judge also found that there was some merit in the defendant barrister's comments that it would be “health and safety gone mad”, if a judge were to say this party’s organisers had fallen below the required standard of care.

Practical Lessons

Obviously, this case does not absolve employers from liability for accidents and injury at social events - care needs to be taken. But it might be useful, provided employers do try to assess risk, warn party-goers about behaviour, and distance themselves from much of the organisation.
https://www.stjohnschambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Shelbourne-v-Cancer-Research-UK-appeal-judgment.pdf