In the recent High Court decision of ABC v Huntercombe (No 12) Ltd and others, the court delivered a significant ruling clarifying the scope of liabilities that transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). Specifically, the court addressed whether vicarious liability for torts committed by employees prior to a
The Employment Tribunal (ET) has found that an employee that was called “a bald ****” by a fellow male colleague was harassed based on his sex.
The Claimant presented a number of other claims against the Respondent, including unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, victimisation and health and safety detriments; however, this post focuses on
The Supreme Court has now delivered its judgements on two important cases involving the concept of vicarious liability. In both it has upheld the appeals holding that the employer was not vicariously liable.
The first case is WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants. The case concerned a data breach by a disgruntled employee
The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision of the High Court holding that an employer can be vicariously liable for data breaches caused by the actions of an employee, even where the employee’s actions were specifically intended to harm the employer. This decision is significant as it means a company can be held liable
The issue of the liability the employers can face as a result of the acts and/or omissions of their employees is a recurring aspect of employee management in France.
There are no specific employment rules per se governing the extent to which the employers can be held vicariously liable for the acts of their employees.
This article was written by Steven Adams, an Associate and Hermann Nieuwoudt, a Director at Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa
The Eastern Cape High Court has developed the common law and expanded the circumstances in which an employer may be held vicariously liable for its employee’s sexual harassment of another employee.
Phil-Ann Erasmus was employed
This post was also contributed by Ebru Tirel, Trainee, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP (Munich).
Imagine a forklift truck driver damaging the car of a customer of the employer, resulting in a loss of EUR 200,000. Who will be liable for the damage?
Generally speaking, of course, the employee is directly liable for the damage caused
Back in the day, the concept of vicarious liability (that is the situation in which one party is held liable for the acts or omissions of another) was largely confined to the employer/employee relationship. However, as working relationships have become more complex and diverse, and fewer people are entering into classic employer/employee relationships, vicarious liability
Two recent decisions of the UK Supreme Court have considered the doctrine of vicarious liability and effectively extended it to a wider range of circumstances.
In the UK an employer can be held liable for the tortious acts committed by an employee in the course of their employment. Courts will consider whether there is a
This post was contributed by Sipelelo Litji, Lauren Coetzee and Kate Paterson
Employers may be vicariously liable for an employee’s actions regardless of whether they are acting in the course and scope of their employment.
This is according to a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment that found the Minister of Defence to be liable for