Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
The case will be of interest to all those involved in the enforcement of debts who may engage third parties to assist in the enforcement process. It is also of relevance more generally for all companies and other entities worried about the possibility of being held vicariously liable even when a third party is engaged other than as an ‘employee’.
The Court of Appeal highlighted the factors pointing to the relationship being ‘akin to that of employer and employee’ such that the engaging party is vicariously liable. These included whether the wrongdoer’s actions were on behalf of the engaging party and an integral part of its business activities and whether, by engaging the wrongdoer, the engaging party may be said to have ‘created the risk of the tort’ committed. In deciding that the respondent was not vicariously liable, the case distinguishes those circumstances falling outside the employer-employee context likely to trigger vicarious liability and those unlikely to do so.
Influential factors in the court’s decision were the fact that the bailiff it had engaged was very much ‘his own boss’, over which the respondent had no real control, was free to conduct the debt collection service in whatever manner he saw fit, was free to work for other firms and maintained his own insurance. In short, he was clearly conducting himself in manner that was independent of the respondent. Although this provides comfort to those engaging third parties, this area of law is not an exact science—it is possible to envisage that where the party engaged is only partially independent and provides a service which is on behalf of and integral to the engaging party’s activities, the balance could tilt back towards a finding of vicarious liability.
The respondent was a judicial services company responsible for the collection of certain council tax debts owed to the London Borough of Wandsworth. It subcontracted this task to a bailiff, Mr Boylan. He and another bailiff, a Mr Fenwick, assaulted and battered the debtor and unlawfully extracted money from him as a result of fraudulent misrepresentation. The District Judge found that Mr Boylan had been engaged by the respondent but was self-employed and that Mr Fenwick was neither employed nor had been engaged under any contract with the respondent. Since neither were employees of the respondent, or in a relationship ‘akin to employment’, the District Judge (and subsequently the Recorder in the Central London County Court on appeal) held that the respondent could not be vicariously liable for their actions.
The key question for the Court of Appeal was whether in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in E G Cox v Ministry of Justice  UKSC 10 and Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society and others  UKSC 56, the respondents were in fact vicariously liable, since these cases provided key guidance regarding when vicarious liability may be imposed where the wrongdoer (tortfeasor) is not an employee of the defendant. The courts below had not considered these cases.
In Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society  2 AC 1, the Supreme Court held that the relationship can give rise to vicarious liability if it is 'akin to that between an employer and employee' and outlined five key factors. In Cox v Ministry of Justice  UKSC 10, the Supreme Court examined the five factors and found that they were not all equal in importance:
The factors of key importance were:
The factors of lesser importance:
Lord Reed added that vicarious liability is not imposed where ‘a tortfeasor's activities are entirely attributable to the conduct of a recognisably independent business of his own or of a third party’ and that ‘business’ or ‘enterprise’ did not necessarily mean that the defendant needs to be carrying on activities of a commercial nature.
In light of this guidance, the Court of Appeal decided that the relationship between the respondent and the bailiffs was not ‘akin to that of employment’ and that the respondent firm was not vicariously liable. This was despite the appellants’ arguments that the risk to members of the public that the bailiffs might commit a tort was created by the respondent and that the bailiffs were acting to serve the respondent’s commercial interests and were therefore integral to its business.
The court gave the following reasons for its decision:
Sapna Garg is a solicitor-advocate (gunnercooke LLP) and consultant PSL (SimplyPSL). She is also a member of LexisPSL’s Case Analysis Expert Panel. Suitable candidates are welcome to apply to become members of the panel. Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
0330 161 1234