Vicarious liability meaning

Pagden (as liquidator of Core VCT IV Plc and Core VCT V plc) and others v Fry and other cases [2025] EWHC 2316 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision clarifies that, although liquidators’ firms and their personnel may, in certain circumstances, invoke limitation clauses in relation to distinct contractual or tortious duties (always subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and fact-specific questions of vicarious liability), individual liquidators cannot restrict the statutory obligations that arise under a statutory trust. Sensible practice is for liquidators and their firms to revisit engagement letters to (a) set out, with precision, the separation between liquidators’ statutory functions and any contractual or advisory services; and (b) add explicit carve-outs confirming that limitation provisions have no application to the liquidators’ statutory duties. What was the background? The claimants are three companies that issued proceedings against their former liquidators and the firm of those former office-holders (the defendants). They contend the defendants breached fiduciary, tortious and contractual...

Anderson v CAE Crewing Services Ltd [2024] EAT 78 On 22 May 2024, the EAT issued a judgment holding that the lower tribunal had wrongly concluded CAE Crewing Services bore no liability for the actions of two doctors who examined flight attendant Jessica Anderson for a fit-to-fly certificate. Judge James Tayler found the Employment Tribunal had misapplied the law by framing the question as whether the doctors conducting the fitness-to-fly examinations were agents of the employer. Having reached a non-liability finding, the tribunal then gave reasoning on Anderson’s substantive disability discrimination claims that was incomplete and inadequate, he said. The judgment records that in January 2019 Anderson entered into a contract with CAE Crewing Services, a business that supplies airlines with cabin crew. Members are expected to hold fit-to-fly certificates issued by aviation medical examiners. An examiner assessed Anderson in December 2018; she also has a heart condition...

Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Ltd [2024] EAT 137 What are the practical implications of this decision? The practical effect is that uncertainty endures as to whether a claimant can contend both that a co-worker imposed the detriment of dismissal and that the employer bears vicarious responsibility for that misconduct, even though the employer could not itself be personally liable for the detriment of dismissal. Pursuing such a formulation assists the claimant owing to the approach to causation, and because compensation for injury to feelings is available on a detriment claim but not for an unfair dismissal claim issued directly against the employer. In this appeal, HHJ Barklem indicates adherence to the unambiguous language of paragraph 91 in Osipov, which points to vicarious liability being capable of arising in these circumstances. That conclusion directly clashes with Bourne J’s judgment in Wicked Vision, which reached the reverse view on the footing that paragraph 91 did not form part of Osipov’s ratio. The consequence is a continuing lack of clarity pending...

Quick view This Practice Note explores whether an employee can be engaged by two or more employers for the same role at the same time—joint employment (also termed dual employment or multiple employment). It examines the general assumption, the issue of vicarious liability, and the position of agency workers, office-holders and teachers. It also considers the setting of collective bargaining, the effect of TUPE 2006, and tax questions that may arise. Finally, it reviews the factors relevant to written contracts that involve multiple employers. Joint employment is typically discussed in relation to vicarious liability, for instance negligence (see: Vicarious liability, below). Regarding an individual’s employment rights, it appears reasonably clear that the prevailing presumption—that an employee cannot have more than one employer for the same work at the same time—can be displaced in these situations: where the person has two roles with separate employers and the roles are compatible; and where two or more employers act together within a partnership or joint venture ...

PI & Clinical negligence horizon scanner—July 2025 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. It summarises the principal legal developments relevant to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as at July 2025. For developments predating this horizon scanner, see PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning and key cases—overview. Key PI and clinical negligence developments The personal injury discount rate—a review In late 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, revealed the outcome of her five‑month review of the discount rate, initiated in July 2024. One month after the new +0.5% discount rate took effect, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) assesses its impact on cases, the responses from claimant and defendant representatives, and the consequences of the change for legal practitioners. See News Analysis: The personal injury discount rate—a review. MoJ announces reduction in CFO’s interest rates The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced lower interest rates for the Courts Funds Office’s (CFO) special and basic accounts...

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246 On a relevant transfer, TUPE 2006 effects a statutory novation of transferring employees’ contracts: the transferee steps into the transferor’s shoes. This Practice Note outlines the rights, powers, duties and liabilities that pass, and treats the transferor’s acts or omissions as those of the transferee in relation to transferring staff. For fuller guidance on: what amounts to a relevant transfer under TUPE 2006, see Practice Notes: TUPE—business transfers and TUPE—service provision changes who counts as transferring employees, see Practice Note: TUPE—transfer of employees the duty to inform and consult about a relevant transfer, see Practice Note: TUPE—information and consultation how TUPE 2006 protects transferring staff against contractual variations and dismissal, see Practice Notes: TUPE—variation of contract terms and TUPE—protection against dismissal For a checklist of employment-related liabilities that arise on a relevant transfer under TUPE 2006, and whether they pass from transferor to transferee, see: What...

In the COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ] OR in the High Court of Justice [ Specify division ] [ Insert location ] District Registry Claim No: Between [ Insert name ] Claimant and [ Insert name ] First Defendant Second Defendant Particulars of claim At all material times, the Claimant was employed as a [ insert job title eg Delivery Driver ] by [ insert employer’s name eg Plant Hire Limited ]. Whilst performing [ his OR her ] duties on [ insert date of accident ], [ he OR she ] was tasked with delivering a power float (‘the float’) to the First Defendant’s premises at [ insert address ]. On the Claimant’s arrival at the premises, the First Defendant informed the Claimant that he planned to remove the float from the lorry using a JCB. The First Defendant further stated that various people on site would assist with this unloading process...

[ In the County Court at [ insert ] OR in the High Court of Justice ] [ [ Specify division ] ] [ [ Specify specialist court ] ] [ [ Insert location ] District Registry ] Claim No. [ insert claim number ] Between [ Insert name and details of the Claimant ] Claimant -and- [ Insert name and details of the Defendant ] Defendant Particulars of claim 1 At all relevant times, the Claimant was in the employment of the Defendant as a [ insert Claimant’s job title and location eg mail sorter at its Islington office ] and was acting within the scope of [ his OR her ] employment. The Claimant’s employment began on [ insert date ]. Throughout this period, the Claimant reported to [ insert name of Claimant’s line manager, eg Mr Bloggs ]. [ Mr Bloggs’ ] own manager was [ insert name, eg Mr Jones ]. The Defendant’s Managing Director was [...

Claim No. [ insert claim number ] In the COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ] Between: Mrs a.b. Claimant -and- C.d. Limited Defendant PARTICULARS OF CLAIM At all times relevant to these proceedings: The Defendant owned a bus, registration number [ insert registration number ] (“the bus”); The bus was driven and/or operated by a servant or agent of the Defendant (whose identity is unknown to the Claimant) whilst acting within the scope of their employment or agency (“the driver”). Accordingly, the Defendant is vicariously liable for any negligent acts or omissions and/or breaches of statutory duty committed by that employee or agent; The bus and the driver were governed by the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 (as amended) (“the Regulations”); and The Claimant was a fare-paying passenger aboard the bus. At or about [ insert time ] on [ insert date ],...