Vicarious Liability 2017

Book your free initial call

    We endeavour to make an initial response to all enquiries within 24 hours but please be aware that on some occasions due to prior commitments or volume of calls we will not be able to respond in that time frame. We also operate a 48 hour return policy. This return policy means that if we have not responded with 48 hours of your initial enquiry we are unable to do so due to current workloads and we will destroy your data accordingly. This policy ensures you are not left waiting and have the certainty that your data is not compromised. In most instances however we are able to make contact within a 24 hour time frame. Please note our free initial advice service is available to clients at our total discretion and if your case is of a complex nature we may not be able to offer you a free consultation. However in these instances we will advise you what the charge would be for an initial fixed fee consultation.
  • (view our privacy statement)
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

If a doctor, assigned by a company to carry out medical examinations on prospective job applicants, commits a sexual assault, is that company then vicariously liable?

In Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc the High Court concluded that, Yes, the company is liable.

In this case there were 126 claims of sexual assault and the Court applied the two-stage test: The first stage was to assess whether the relationship between the claimants and the respondent was one of employment or “akin to employment”, and the second was whether these assaults were connected sufficiently to the employment or quasi-employment.

The five criteria identified in Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016]was used to pass the first test. It was noted that the assaults had occurred as a result of work that had been scheduled by the bank by a doctor working on behalf of the bank. The bank were in control of what the doctor was doing no matter whether they directed him in how he should do it.

It was found, on the second test, that the assaults were connected sufficiently to the employment as they were completely interlaced in the performance of the doctor’s duties.

Even though the claims were brought many years after the alleged assaults it was deemed fair and reasonable to impose vicarious liability as this was now the Claimant’s only legal recourse.

Written by
Lorraine Emery
24th August 2017