Planning analysis: A sequence of recent decisions have highlighted the current thinking around viability, and these are a timely reminder to practitioners of the vital importance of viability in the planning process. Matthew Tucker of Burges Salmon considers the matter.

The European Commission has announced that Viagogo, an online marketplace for second-hand sale of event tickets, has made a commitment to stop pressuring consumers with excessive countdown messages and to also provide better information on the conditions of the resale of tickets in line with EU consumer protection laws. This comes after multiple complaints lodged with the Commission and national consumer authorities. Viagogo has agreed to implement changes to its website by the end of August 2024 which include the clarification of ticket ranking in search results, reduction in the number of countdown messages that appear on the website and ensuring that consumers are informed whether the seller of the tickets is a trader or another consumer on the ticket selection page already. Viagogo has also agreed to implement, by the end of August 2024, changes and clarifications to several clauses in its terms & conditions. The Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network will now actively monitor how Viagogo implements its commitments and if Viagogo does not implement the commitments properly within the agreed timeframe or if it fails to address the remaining concerns raised by the CPC Network, national consumer authorities may decide to take measures to enforce compliance, including sanctions.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case reflects the position at the date of the decision on 25 May 2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of Inmarsat Group Holdings Limited by Viasat Inc. (M.10807). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the supply of in-flight connectivity for aircraft. Latest developments On 25 May 2023, the Commission unconditionally cleared the transaction. Parties • Viasat Inc. (Vaisat):Viasat is headquartered in the US and is a vertically integrated satellite network operator and satellite services provider. Viasat owns and operates four GEO satellites. In addition, Viasat leases capacity on third-party satellites. Viasat has three core business segments: satellite services, commercial networks, and government systems.• Inmarsat Group Holdings Limited (Insarsat): Insarmat is a UK based company and is a vertically integrated satellite network operator and satellite services provider. Inmarsat owns and operates three proprietary satellite networks across its fleet of fifteen GEO satellites. Inmarsat's business is organised into four customer segments: aviation, maritime, enterprise, and government. Background On 21

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision on 9 May 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated acquisition by Viasat, Inc. of Inmarsat Group Holdings Limited. The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the supply of in-flight connectivity for aircraft. Latest developments On 9 May 2023, the CMA issued its final report, unconditionally clearing the transaction. The CMA concluded that, whilst the parties compete closely (specifically in the supply of connectivity for wifi on flights), the transaction does not reduce competition for services provided on flight used by UK customers because the: (i) satellite sector is expanding rapidly and evolving due the increased demand for satellite connectivity, which is driven largely by an ever-growing use of the internet by business and consumers; and (ii) aggregate constraints the merged entity would likely face from other rivals, including a number of new operators entering or planning to enter the sector and established players who are also investing and entering into new partnerships. Parties • Viasat,

Criminal responsibility for the act or omission of another, usually an employee.

Employers bear vicarious liability for torts committed by their employees (in traditional terms, those employed under a 'contract of service') within the course of employment.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The case is important because: Previously, the Supreme Court had held that a local authority can be vicariously liable for torts committed against a child by a foster carer who was not related to the child. However, they had left open whether vicarious liability could occur if they were related. Written by Marcus Weatherby, partner, Pattinson and Brewer Solicitors.

This Practice Note considers the following torts: • employer’s liability in tort • vicarious liability in tort • accessory liability in tort—common design • procurement liability in tort For claims involving issues of joint, several, and joint and several tortious liability, see Practice Note: Multiple tortfeasors—liability issues and related content. For guidance on other torts, see Practice Notes: • The different torts—property, people and animals • Procedural abuse torts and similar For guidance on negligence claims, see Practice Note: Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claim and related content. For practical guidance content on negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty claims, see: Tort and negligence claims—overview. For guidance on bringing and defending claims against professionals, see: Professional negligence claims—overview. Employers' liability in tort An employer is liable for the safety of their employees at work. If they fail to provide a safe place or system of work, they can be liable at common law or for breaching one of the numerous statutory duties, which impose liability on an employer. At

This Practice Note considers an employer’s vicarious liability for deliberate or criminal acts by an employee. Commonly encountered situations relating to sexual abuse, physical assaults, incidents arising from friction in the workplace and horseplay or pranks that go wrong are all reviewed. Since the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall in 2001, it has been clear that, subject to satisfaction of the relevant test, an employer may be held vicariously liable for intentional harm done by an employee (or in certain circumstances, others in a similar or analogous position). See further Practice Notes: • Nature and operation of vicarious liability • Scope and impact of vicarious liability • Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection test The purpose of this Practice Note is to provide a summary of the position in relation to different categories of intentional harm. Sexual abuse Since the decision in Lister, there has been a succession of cases dealing with the issue of vicarious liability in the context of the sexual abuse of children in

In the past, a defendant would only be vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver if the driver was acting in the course of their employment for the defendant. The law has developed significantly since then. If the driver is not an employee of the defendant, a potential claimant must now consider the relationship between the driver and the defendant and the connection between that relationship and the driver’s negligence. Liability of an ‘employer’ for a driver’s negligence Does the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor attract vicarious liability? Whether the tortfeasor is considered to be an employee is often straightforward where a conventional employer/employee relationship exists by virtue of a contract of employment. The situation is less clear cut if, for example, the driver is said to be self-employed but appears to be carrying out activities on the instruction of the defendant. A variety of different tests have been adopted by the courts to determine whether an individual should be considered to be an employee, ultimately depending on an assessment

This Practice Note considers the circumstances in which the court will hold an employer vicariously liable for a tort which has been committed by an employee. The courts’ approach to the ‘close connection’ test has evolved over time and this Practice Note provides practitioners with an understanding of how the doctrine has developed. To identify the circumstances in which a court may find an employer to be vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee it is useful to trace the development of the doctrine. Salmond test Historically, the test to be applied was the one described by Salmond in his 1907 text Law of Torts. The fundamental proposition was that: ‘a master is not responsible for a wrongful act done by his servant unless it is done in the course of his employment’ Salmond went on to say that it was deemed to be done in the course of his employment if it was either: • a wrongful act authorised by the master, or • a wrongful

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The responsibility for the actions of those engaged (or acting) on behalf of others has been widely considered and expanded by recent authority at Supreme Court level (Various Claimants v Barclays Bank Plc, Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society and BXB v Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, despite this expansion the continuing importance and status of true independent contractors was acknowledged by the High Court. In his recent judgment, Mr Justice Sweeting (JD Wetherspoon Plc v Burger) highlighted the importance of the distinction between a contract for service and a contract of service. While commercial reality meant that control would exist in this relationship this should not be an indicator for an exercise to change the status of what was an independent third party. Written by Johnathan Payne, barrister at Deka Chambers, London.