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
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Jessica Standley, associate at Slater and Gordon LLP, who was acting as a lead solicitor for the claimants in Various Claimants vs Barclays Bank Plc, looks at the issue and the two-stage test for vicarious liability.
Before it’s here, it’s on Lexis®PSL. Click here to take a free trial.
This case involves a group of claimants who are seeking damages from Barclays Bank (the Bank) following alleged sexual assaults which took place during pre-employment medical examinations or in some cases during employment and were performed by Dr Gordon
Bates in Newcastle.
It was compulsory for the claimants to attend the medical examinations and passing the medical was a requirement of employment. The question for the court in this preliminary hearing was whether or not the Bank should be held vicariously liable for the
It was the claimant’s case that the Bank should be held vicariously liable due to there being a relationship of employment or akin to employment and the assaults being sufficiently closely connected to that relationship. It was the Bank’s
case that Dr Bates was self-employed and was an independent contractor for which they could not be vicariously liable.
During the case, Her Honour Justice Nicola Davies examined the test for establishing vicarious liability and in doing so acknowledged that there have been significant developments in the law in this area. It was agreed that the two-stage test for vicarious
liability was that set out by Lord Ward in Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants  UKSC 56. The law regarding vicarious liability was recently reviewed in the cases of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc  UKSC 11 and Cox v Ministry of Justice  UKSC 10.
The two-stage test has been set out as: the relationship between the Bank and Dr Bates was one of employment or akin to employment. If so, was the tort sufficiently closely connected with that employment or quasi employment?
In examining the first part of the test in this case the court applied the five criteria set out by Lord Philips in Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants  UKSC 56 and reaffirmed by Lord Reed in Cox v Ministry of Justice  UKSC 10 and found the following:
It therefore followed that the court found that the first stage of the test had been satisfied. In relation to the second stage the court appeared to have little difficulty finding that the assaults were closely connected to the relationship between the
Bank and Dr Bates.
The final test for the court to consider was whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose liability and the court found that in these circumstances, it was.
This is a significant case in relation to the application of the doctrine of vicarious liability. As is recognised in the judgment, there have been significant developments in the law and this case demonstrates how the test has widened. The case is a
reminder that even if an individual is described as an ‘independent contractor’ a full analysis of the facts may reveal otherwise.
The case is helpful in providing further clarification of where a party may be found to be vicariously liable. However, during the case the Bank sought to establish that Dr Bates was an independent contractor and as such that they should not be held vicariously
liable for his actions.
While, on the fact of this case their argument did not succeed and the Bank were found to be vicariously liable, it is evident that there is scope for further similar arguments to be litigated surrounding where the line should be drawn in relation to
the definition of an independent contractor.
It is of note that the Bank and their legal team are currently reviewing their position following judgment.
Practitioners should be mindful that it will be necessary for all parties to carefully consider employment or quasi employment relationships to determine whether they may give rise to vicarious liability.
There are likely to be implications for those in quasi-employment relationships which may previously have been considered independent. It may be useful for practitioners to advise clients to review relationships involving third parties in light of this
However, it is clear that each case will depend on the facts. In the instant case, for example, had the claimants been given a choice of doctor and, perhaps the choice of a female doctor or the option to be accompanied or if the questions set by the Bank
had been less prescriptive, the court may have come to a different conclusion.
As Her Honour Justice Davies commented, the law regarding vicarious liability has been on the move for some time and many practitioners have been waiting for the next decision after Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc  UKSC 11 and Cox v Ministry of Justice  UKSC 10. This case fits in with the developments in the law which have widened the scope of vicarious liability. In light of the many different working relationships that exist, it is unlikely that this will be the last case of this type to
come before the courts.
Interviewed by Evelyn Reid.The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234