This tracker considers the case law on vicarious liability. These cases provide useful guidance on how the courts have interpreted this developing area of law. They are listed in date order to track the evolution of the doctrine of vicarious liability. When considering liability, a claimant will be seeking to establish the fault of an identified defendant (in workplace cases, typically their employer). However, in certain circumstances, there may often be an alternative route to liability—the vicarious liability of the employer for the acts or omissions of its employee or agent. It is referred to as vicarious liability as the actual breach of duty is that of the employee. It is often said that the employer’s liability is strict; the employer is fixed with liability without any requirement of proof that there was any breach of duty on its part. As expressed by Gross LJ in Allen v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary, to succeed in a claim against a defendant based on its vicarious liability for an employee’s negligent actions, the claimant

Personal Injury analysis: 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, discusses the practical implications of the judgment and the two-stage test for vicarious liability.

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has announced that Vice President of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Christopher Mark Glyn Ockelton, has retired with effect from 22 January 2024.

A victim surcharge is a financial imposition added to certain criminal sentences to help fund services for victims of crime, rather than compensation payable directly to an individual victim. It is usually ordered alongside the principal penalty (such as a fine, community order or custodial sentence) and is calculated by reference to that penalty and the offender’s means.In England and Wales, the victim surcharge is a statutory requirement under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and related secondary legislation. Courts have limited discretion to reduce or remit it in specified circumstances. It is commonly encountered in magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court, and also applies to some out-of-court disposals.In Scotland and Northern Ireland, similar statutory surcharges exist (often referred to as a victim or offender levy), with proceeds directed to victim support funds.In Ireland, the concept is not formalised as a universal statutory surcharge in the same way; victim-related financial orders are more likely to arise via compensation orders or costs orders.For practitioners, the victim surcharge affects sentencing calculations, enforcement, and advice on plea and financial consequences for clients.

Corporate Crime analysis: Kevin Dent and Eleanor Scott of 5 St Andrew’s Hill consider the impact statement of the Stanford rape victim against the law and practice of making victim personal statements (VPS) in UK criminal cases.

Victim personal statements—guidance Guidance on the making, form and use of a victim personal statement (VPS), sometimes referred to as a victim impact statement, is available from various sources, including: • Criminal Practice Directions (CPD) • the Joint Agency Guide to the Victim Personal Statement • the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (Victims’ Code) • the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) enforcement guide on VPS, and • the Ministry of Justice Guidance to victims: Making a Victim Personal Statement Practitioners should have regard to these resources when advising in relation to a VPS. Victim personal statements—what are they? A VPS is a statement from the victim of crime explaining the effect the crime has had on them or, where the victim has died, the impact on surviving relatives. It has two main purposes: • to give victims the formal opportunity to explain, in their own words, how a crime has affected them physically, emotionally, financially or in any other way • to help the court and prosecution authorities to identify the

Family analysis: AP (now aged 68) and JP (now 72) entered into a marriage ceremony in 2009. AP was born a woman and underwent gender re-assignment surgery in 1990. He was issued with a full gender recognition certificate (GRC) in February 2022. JP was born a woman. Previously (as detailed in AP v JP [2019] EWHC 3105 (Fam), [2020] 1 FLR 807) AP had sought a declaration of the 2009 marriage’s validity after being informed by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2017 that his marital status could not be recognised. Mr Justice Cobb held it to be void, an outcome that he regretted was ‘very distressing to AP and JP’. AP subsequently applied for a decree of nullity under the mistaken belief that this was necessary for him to be able to marry JP. AP and JP ultimately married, validly, in February 2024, though during the nullity proceedings AP sought to focus on the human rights issues involved and in 2023 raised an explicit claim under sections 3 and 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), asserting the incompatibility of domestic matrimonial legislation (chiefly section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973)) with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as it pertained to his being unable to obtain a decree. Cobb J dismissed AP’s application. The same-sex ground in respect of void marriages capable of giving rise to a decree of nullity was removed by amendments (crucially non-retrospective) made to the MCA 1973, and the directly relevant authority in Akhter v Khan [2020] EWCA Civ 122, [2020] 2 FLR 139 was binding in respect of the HRA 1998 claim. AP had also failed to establish ‘victim’ status under the HRA 1998. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

Public Law analysis: Reprieve, a legal action non-governmental organisation, and two MPs judicially reviewed the Prime Minister’s decision not to hold a public inquiry into the alleged complicity of British state agents in the unlawful rendition, detention, and mistreatment of individuals by other states in the years following the attack on New York in September 2001. The Court of Appeal held that the claimants were not victims within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and that Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) therefore did not apply to the claim. It further decided that the claimants were not entitled to disclosure in accordance with the standard set in SSHD v AF (No 3). Written by Jonathan Lewis, barrister at Henderson Chambers.

The concept whereby an employee is victimised by an employer or the actions of another person in specific circumstances.

This Practice Note examines unlawful victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). Domestic laws that have been made to implement UK obligations under EU law (such as the obligation to implement Directive 2000/78/EC, the Equal Treatment Framework Directive, which EqA 2010 implements) are assimilated law. For further information, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. The purpose of the victimisation provisions is to protect an individual who speaks up to assert their rights under EqA 2010 and are treated badly in retaliation. For example: • a woman suggests to her (male) manager that he did not promote her because of her gender • the manager responds by dismissing her • he says that he did not do so because of her gender, but rather because she had the impertinence to suggest that he had discriminated against her The manager’s act is not direct or indirect discrimination, but it is unlawful victimisation (see: Victimisation defined, below). For information on other forms of discrimination and prohibited conduct under EqA 2010, see: Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc)—overview. For information: • on the circumstances

Corporate Crime analysis: The Victims and Courts Bill (the Bill) was introduced by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt. Hon. Shabna Mahmood on 7 May 2025 and is presently at the Committee Stage. Liam Lane, associate at Peters & Peters, explores at the key provisions of the Bill.

The Victims and Courts Bill has received Royal Assent, introducing reforms aimed at strengthening victims’ rights and improving the operation of the criminal justice system. The Act places a greater emphasis on the experience of victims, enhances the role and powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, and clearer mechanisms for oversight of compliance with the Victims’ Code. Key measures include a new statutory power enabling courts to require offenders to attend sentencing hearings, with sanctions for non-compliance, and restrictions on parental responsibility for certain offenders convicted of serious sexual offences against children. The Act also provides greater clarity and access for victims seeking information about offenders during their sentence, and introduces procedural reforms affecting prosecution and sentencing, including changes to the unduly lenient sentence referral process and greater flexibility in the appointment of Crown Prosecutors.