![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2020] UKSC 12 held that a tortfeasor’s motive was ‘highly material’ in considering the second stage ‘close connection’ test for vicarious liability. However, the authors submit that this reintroduction of motive is highly problematic. It runs contrary to previous jurisprudence and backslides into the rigid artificiality which the ‘close connection’ test was supposed to solve. A revised approach to the ‘close connection’ test is suggested, involving an objective consideration of the connection between the tortfeasor’s employment and the circumstances surrounding the tort. This approach remedies the above-mentioned problems and existing academic criticism of the ‘close connection test’, and further accurately reflects how the courts actually determine the second stage test for vicarious liability.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to the anonymous reviewer, Mr Michael Leung, Mr Sam Cathro, Mr Alex C H Yeung, and Miss Nicole Carisia Chia for their insightful comments on earlier drafts.
Notes
1 [2020] UKSC 12 (Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC)).
2 ibid [31]. Although ‘relationships akin to employment’ can give rise to vicarious liability, for clarity the authors refer to the tortfeasor and the vicariously liable party as ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ respectively.
3 John W Salmond, The Law of Torts (Stevens and Haynes 1907) 83–84.
4 [2016] UKSC 11 (UKSC).
5 Morrison (n 1) [2].
6 ibid [3].
7 ibid [4]–[7].
8 ibid [8].
9 ibid.
10 Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2017] EWHC 3113 (QB) (Morrison (First Instance)) (England and Wales High Court) [184]; Morrison (n 1) [12].
11 Morrison (First Instance) (n 10) [186]; Morrison (n 1) [12].
12 Morrison (First Instance) (n 10) [185]; Morrison (n 1) [12].
13 Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2018] EWCA Civ 2339 (Court of Appeal of England and Wales (CA)) [61]–[78]; Morrison (n 1) [14].
14 Morrison (n 1) [25]–[26]. See also Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48 (United Kingdom House of Lords (HL)) (Dubai) [23]–[26]; Mohamud (n 4) [44]–[45].
15 Morrison (n 1) [26].
16 ibid [31].
17 ibid [35].
18 ibid [31], [47].
19 (1866–67) LR 2 Ex 259.
20 ibid 265.
21 Thorne v Heard [1894] 1 Ch 599 (CA) 611; Hamlyn v John Houston & Co [1903] 1 KB 81 (CA) (Hamlyn) 85–86; Ruben v Great Fingall Consolidated [1906] AC 439 (HL) 446.
22 [1912] AC 716 (HL) 726–27, 732–34.
23 (1708) 91 ER 256 (Court of King’s Bench) 256. See also Mohamud (n 4) [45].
24 Hern (n 23) 256.
25 Lloyd (n 22) 735, 740–41.
26 Barwick (n 19) 263–64.
27 Lloyd (n 22) 728–29.
28 Morris v C W Martin & Sons Ltd (Morris) [1966] 1 QB 716 (CA) 723–24, 735, 740; Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 (HL) (Lister) [17]–[18], [55], [71]–[72].
29 Lister (n 28).
30 [2012] UKSC 56 (UKSC).
31 Mohamud (n 4).
32 ibid [48]; Group Seven Ltd v Notable Services LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 614 (CA) [141].
33 Dubai (n 14).
34 Morrison (n 1) [38], [47].
35 Dubai (n 14) [28].
36 ibid [29].
37 See the cases referred to in footnote 28.
38 Dubai (n 14) [31]–[32].
39 Hamlyn (n 21).
40 [1919] 26 CLR 110 (High Court of Australia (HCA)); Dubai (n 14) [32].
41 Hamlyn (n 21) 85–86.
42 Bugge (n 40) 118.
43 ibid; Turberville v Stampe (1697) 91 ER 1072, 1073; Cheshire v Bailey [1905] 1 KB 237 (CA) 243, 244, 245.
44 (1834) 6 Car & P 501, 503; 172 ER 1338, 1339.
45 Lister (n 28) [44].
46 Dubai (n 14) [32].
47 Morrison (n 1) [47].
48 ibid [23], [36].
49 ibid [23].
50 CCWS (n 30) [83], [85].
51 Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534 (Supreme Court of Canada) [24]; Lister (n 28) [23]. See also Mohamud (n 4) [43].
52 Lister (n 28) [48], [79].
53 ibid [79].
54 Mohamud (n 4) [48].
55 ibid [47]; Morrison (n 1) [27].
56 Mohamud (n 4) [47].
57 ibid.
58 [2018] EWCA Civ 2214 (CA) [29].
59 Lister (n 28) [24].
60 Salmond (n 3) 83–84.
61 Lister (n 28) [23]–[24].
62 Morrison (n 1) [31], [47].
63 Lloyd (n 22); Morris (n 28).
64 Lister (n 28); CCWS (n 30).
65 Bellman (n 58); Mohamud (n 4).
66 Lister (n 28) [16].
67 Morris (n 28) 733; quoted in Lister (n 28) [24].
68 Christine Beuermann, Reconceptualising Strict Liability for the Tort of Another (Hart Publishing 2019); Anthony Gray, Vicarious Liability: Critique and Reform (Hart Publishing 2018).
69 Paula Giliker, ‘Vicarious Liability in the UK Supreme Court’ (2016) 7 The UK Supreme Court Yearbook 152, 165.
70 ibid 166.
71 James Plunkett, ‘Taking Stock of Vicarious Liability’ (2016) 132 Law Quarterly Review 556, 560–61.
72 [2016] HCA 37 (HCA) [68], [72]–[73], [83].
73 This incremental approach can be demonstrated by the reluctance of the Australian Courts to extend vicarious liability beyond employer/employee relationships, see Day v The Ocean Beach Hotel Shellharbour Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 250 [14]; Trustees of Roman Catholic Church v Ellis [2007] NSWCA 117 [53]–[54].
74 Prince Alfred (n 72) [81].
75 Mohamud (n 4) [48].
76 [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 101 (HL) 104.
77 Bellman (n 55).
78 Morrison (n 1) [45]–[46]. The authors note that Lord Reed approved of the conclusion but had some doubt as to the reasoning of Bellman in Morrison.
79 Bellman (n 58) [6].
80 ibid [25], [27].
81 ibid.
82 Lister (n 28) [83].
83 Mohamud (n 4) [47].
84 Morrison (n 1) [47], [56].
85 Lister (n 28) [43].
86 [2004] UKPC 12 (Privy Council of the United Kingdom).
87 Morrison (n 1) [39].
88 Hartwell (n 86) [1]–[6].
89 ibid [17].
90 CCWS (n 30) [87].
91 Morrison (n 1) [35].
92 Dubai (n 14) [26].
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Joshua Yeung
Joshua Yeung holds an LLM from the University of Cambridge, Queens’ College.
Kevin S. M. Bae
Kevin S. M. Bae is an LLB candidate at Morningside College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.