Wm Morrisons Supermarket plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:17:48 UTC
KEY POINTS
- The mere fact that the employee's job provided an opportunity for the wrongful act is not enough to establish vicarious liability.
- Generally, the employer is not held vicariously liable when the employee's actions were not aimed at advancing the employer's business but instead motivated by a personal vendetta.
FACTS
- A senior IT auditor, Andrew Skelton, who was employed by Morrisons (appellant), deliberately copied the personal data of nearly 100,000 employees onto a USB stick. He subsequently uploaded the data to a file-sharing website and notified the media.
- The leak resulted in substantial harm and distress to the affected employees, who brought a claim against Morrisons for damages.
Explore more about
Wm Morrisons Supermarket plc v Various Claimants
COMMENTARY
- The rationale behind limiting vicarious liability in cases of personal vendettas is to strike a balance between protecting innocent victims and holding employers accountable for their employees' actions.
- If an employer were held vicariously liable for every wrongful act committed by an employee, even when entirely unrelated to their employment, it could lead to unfair and overly burdensome legal consequences for businesses.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc
In assessing vicarious liability, the court must: Consider the role and responsibilities assigned by the employer to the employee (i.e., the nature of the job), and Determine if there is a significan...
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
“Vicarious liability is legal responsibility imposed on an employer, although he is himself free from blame, for a tort committed by his employee in the course of his employment.” (Lord Steyn, [14])...
Rose v Plenty
The concept of public policy underpins the doctrine of vicarious liability. An employer is made vicariously liable for his employee's tort not because the plaintiff is an invitee or because the serva...
Cox v Ministry of Justice
The key consideration in establishing vicarious liability is the sufficient connection or proximity between the tortious act and the wrongdoer's role within the organisation. In the context of the ca...
Cassidy v Ministry of Health
If a primary tortfeasor’s negligence can be proven, in certain cases, their employer can be held accountable under the doctrine of vicarious liability. The doctrine provides that an employer is legal...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.