This Practice Note looks at the different types of relationships which may give rise to vicarious liability including between an employer and employee but also other relationships which are similar to employment. An employer’s potential liability is also explored in relation to incidents which occur outside working hours such as at social events and where an employee physically assaults another person. Relationships sufficiently akin to employment In Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants, Lord Phillips famously stated at para [19]: ‘The law of vicarious liability is on the move.’ The relationship that will most often give rise to vicarious liability is that of employer and employee under a contract of employment. It appears that such a relationship will be assumed to be sufficient to satisfy the first stage of the following two-stage test: • stage one—the relationship between the individual tortfeasor and the defendant is one that is capable of giving rise to vicarious liability • stage two—there was a sufficient connection between the act or omission of the tortfeasor and the relationship

Deciding which approach to scheme amendments to take Once planning permission for development has been granted it must be implemented in accordance with the decision notice and conditions imposed (including approved plans referred to in conditions) and any associated legal agreements. See Practice Notes: Planning conditions—key points and Planning obligations—key points. However, amendments to a development scheme are often needed after planning permission has been granted. This can be for a number of reasons, including unforeseen circumstances, market changes or simply because the process of designing a development is lengthy and usually evolves even after permission has been granted. Some flexibility may be contained within the grant of planning permission itself. There is also an ability to make variations to a scheme informally, without any formal application to and approval of the local planning authority (LPA), in very limited circumstances for ‘immaterial changes’, see Lever (Finance) and Midcounties Co-operative. Where the required modifications to a scheme are fundamental or substantial, a new planning application under section 70 of the Town and Country

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The High Court held Morgan Sindall liable in negligence after a cyclist, Mr Brown, sustained serious injuries when his bicycle struck the base of a missing bollard installed as part of temporary traffic management works outside a construction site. The court found that the exposed, non-reflective base of a ‘Kingpin’ bollard, left in situ after the reflective wand had been removed, constituted an unmarked hazard and an unjustified nuisance on the highway, posing a foreseeable danger to vulnerable road users. The defendant’s failure to undertake an adequate risk assessment, install the bollards in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions, or maintain the system once aware of repeated vandalism rendered the arrangement unsafe. The judgment underscores that principal contractors remain legally responsible for temporary traffic schemes implemented by their subcontractors, even where local authorities or Transport for London (TfL) are consulted. The court rejected arguments that collaboration with TfL or Hackney Council amounted to approval or diluted the defendant’s duty of care: ultimate responsibility for highway safety lay squarely with the contractor. Written by Fiaz Siddique, barrister and accredited mediator, Park Square Barristers Chambers.

Family analysis: This case considered the interpretation of section 37(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) empowering the court to direct a local authority to carry out an investigation into the child’s circumstances, and the consequential power to make interim public law orders under ChA 1989, s 38(1)(b). The question arising on appeal was whether those powers extend to any child about whom the court becomes aware during the proceedings, or only to a child who is the subject of proceedings’. The Court of Appeal found that the language of ChA 1989, s 37(1) refers to proceedings in which a question arises for determination about the welfare of a child. The court therefore held that the judge was not entitled to make a ChA 1989, s 37 order in relation to non-subject children and that there was no power to make an interim public law order in respect of a non-subject child. In any event, the making of the interim supervision order had been procedurally unfair. Olivia Magennis, barrister at 1GC|Family Law, looks at the implications.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: At Tax Update 2026, HMRC published a consultation on 'Modernising the distributions framework'. The consultation includes a range of proposals aimed at reducing opportunities for income tax payers to extract value from companies in the form of capital rather than income, including: • preventing the implementation of new holding company structures which facilitate the extraction of value as capital. Currently, the insertion of a new holding company above an existing group holding company results in the shareholders holding ‘good tax capital’ in the new holding company equal to the market value of the old holding company’s shares. A reduction in capital of the new holding company therefore represents a repayment of capital rather than an income distribution. The consultation proposes that share buybacks and other returns of capital ‘reflect a “frozen” amount of capital on the shares in any future holding company at the amount subscribed on the original investment, matching the CGT deferment of the original base cost’ • relaxing the tax conditions to effect a direct or indirect statutory

Law360: The government launched a once-in-a-generation review of retirement savings on 21 July 2025, but experts warned that the new Pensions Commission is a missed opportunity to take a no-holds-barred approach to tackle the savings crisis.

Family analysis: Applying the leading case on the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination in private law proceedings (Re P (Children) (Disclosure)), the Family Court in Re O refused the father’s application to adjourn the final hearing in the case, notwithstanding his claim to privilege in relation to the ‘serious findings’ made against him at the finding of fact hearing, and their impact on nascent criminal proceedings in which it was alleged that he had assaulted the children’s mother and subjected her to coercive and controlling behaviour. Claiming that he was neither able to put his case nor ‘answer any questions at all’ about the findings made, given the asserted privilege, the father also suggested that his ability to give evidence before the Family Court was ‘hindered further’ by the criminal proceedings. The father’s position was that the dicta in Re P essentially barred him from seeking a ‘pre-emptive’ order to prevent disclosure should he decide to make admissions and therefore left him with no choice but to invite the court to delay the children case until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Rejecting the father’s submissions on the point, and making final orders accordingly, the judge (Recorder Samuels KC) held that his position demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the implications.

EU Law analysis: Minesh Tanna, Partner and Global AI Lead, William Dunning, Supervising Associate, Thomas Howard, Associate and Olivia Gao, Trainee Solicitor at Simmons & Simmons consider the EU AI Act, its provisions and its impact on businesses outside the EU.

ISDA documents The 1992 and 2002 ISDA Master Agreements (the Master Agreements) are standard form documents produced by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc (ISDA). In this Practice Note, references to Sections of a Master Agreement and Parts of a Schedule are references to the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement and schedule unless otherwise stated. For general information about negotiating ISDA Master Agreements, see: Introduction to negotiating ISDA documents. What are representations? In Section 3 (Representations) of the Master Agreement, the parties make a number of representations to one another. Representations are pre-contractual statements of fact made by a party to a contract which induce another party to enter into that contract. If a representation is incorrect or misleading, it may give rise to a claim for misrepresentation under general contract law, the remedy for which will be rescission and/or damages depending on the type of misrepresentation. In addition, most documents used in commercial finance transactions contain specific remedies for misrepresentation (see: Section 3—Representations,

ISDA documents The 1992 and 2002 ISDA Master Agreements (the Master Agreements) are standard form documents produced by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA). In this Practice Note, references to Sections of a Master Agreement and Parts of a Schedule are references to the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement and Schedule unless otherwise stated. For general information about negotiating ISDA Master Agreements, see: Introduction to negotiating ISDA documents. What are 'agreements'? 'Agreements' are essentially covenants. Covenants (or undertakings as they are sometimes called) are promises given by one party to another to perform or not perform certain actions. Breach of a covenant will normally trigger an event of default. For information about the purpose of covenants in commercial finance

ISDA documents The 1992 and 2002 ISDA Master Agreements (the Master Agreement) are standard form documents produced by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). In this Practice Note, references to Sections of a Master Agreement and Parts of a Schedule are references to the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement and Schedule unless otherwise stated. For general information about negotiating ISDA Master Agreements, see Practice Note: Introduction to negotiating ISDA documents. What are Events of Default and Termination Events? Section 5 (Events of Default and Termination Events) of the Master Agreement, is divided into two sections: • Section 5(a) (Events of Default) sets out the Events of Default, and • Section 5(b) (Termination Events) sets out the Termination Events Events of Default are events which give one party the right to terminate any outstanding Transactions under an ISDA Master Agreement. A decision to declare an event an Event of Default will result in all Transactions between the parties

ISDA documents The 1992 and 2002 ISDA Master Agreements (the Master Agreements) are standard form documents produced by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc (ISDA). In this Practice Note, references to Sections of a Master Agreement and Parts of a Schedule are references to the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement and Schedule unless otherwise stated. For general information about negotiating ISDA Master Agreements, see: Introduction to negotiating ISDA documents. Section 6—Early Termination Section 6 (Early Termination) of the Master Agreement sets out the consequences of an occurrence of an Event of Default or Termination Event as detailed in Section 5 (see Practice Note: Scope of the ISDA Master Agreement—Section 5 (Events of Default and Termination Events)). Importantly, it sets out how the close out netting mechanism operates following an Event of Default or Termination Event. Right to Terminate Following an Event of Default Where a party has defaulted under Section 5(a) (Events of Default) of the Master Agreement, under Section