Dear All,

The Court of Appeal has now handed down judgment in Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2214 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2214.html.  The case concerns vicarious liability for a Managing Director’s violence against an employee which was committed at an event following the work Christmas party.  The post-party event was voluntary for employees.  The Court of Appeal overruled the judge at first instance and found that there was a sufficiently close connection between the MD’s violent assault on an employee and his employment as MD.  Asplin LJ gave the lead judgment.

What appears core to the position taken by the Court of Appeal was that the post-party event was facilitated by the MD, and paid for by the company, and the violence was in relation to an employee questioning the MD's authority after he had summoned the employees present to lecture them on his authority within the company.  That the MD was always on call was also influential.

It is not clear if the summoning of the employees and the lecture by itself was enough.  The example given by the judge at first instance of a work related argument during a round of golf played by work colleagues was distinguished by the Court of Appeal on the ground that the golfers are equal and attending as casual friends and golfers.  Whereas at the party the individuals attended: “qua staff and managing director… just because the drinking session was unscheduled and voluntary, I do not consider that their roles changed or if they did, that on the facts of this case, the role of managing director was not re-engaged.” (per Asplin LJ at [28]).  This seems an unrealistic distinction since one can imagine that if one is invited to a social round of golf by the Managing Director it may be difficult to say no, even though the event is voluntary, and a similar lecture and assault by a senior employee (re-engaging his role) upon a more junior one can also occur in the context of a game of golf. 

How far the case extends is unclear.    Irwin LJ in his short judgment stressed that the facts were unusual and that there would be limited parallels to the case ([36]).  He stated that “I do emphasise that this combination of circumstances will arise very rarely. Liability will not arise merely because there is an argument about work matters between colleagues, which leads to an assault, even when one colleague is markedly more senior than another. This case is emphatically not authority for the proposition that employers became insurers for violent or other tortious acts by their employees.”  However, this is the likely direction in which this case points.

Moylan LJ agreed with both judgments. 

One would be forgiven for assuming that this decision is based on a motive to achieve a form of veil piercing in the context of a one man company.   However, the case is not so limited. The parameters of liability are also unclear.  Would for instance the MD working at home, who reacts violently to some bad work related news by immediately punching his wife (who in Bellman was also a fellow director) trigger vicarious liability on the part of the company?

Thanks to Roderick Bagshaw for alerting me to the decision being handed down.

Kind regards,

Phillip