- Application of limitation and vicarious liability in football abuse cases (TVZ v Manchester City Football Club)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Vicarious liability (stage one)
- Vicarious liability (stage two)
- Case details
PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The court conducted a forensic analysis of the application of limitation and vicarious liability for the actions of non-employees. It found that even where there is a good explanation for the delay in pursuing a claim, the length of that delay and the way in which it had affected the available evidence (particularly on the fact sensitive issue of vicarious liability) meant it was not fair and just to expect the defendant to meet the claims and that it was not equitable to disapply the limitation periods. Even then, on the evidence that was available the court, it found that notwithstanding there being a ‘connection’ between the defendant and the non-employee, the relationship was not one ‘akin to employment’ (stage one) and even if it was, the abuse was not committed in the course of any duties he may have had (stage two). Written by Ian Carroll, partner and head of Abuse Law at Keoghs LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial