REWARD INSIGHT
Vicarious liability, redundancy, TUPE
Nicola Mullineux, senior employment specialist for Peninsula, reviews the decisions in three cases
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd In the case Bellman v Northampton
assault took place following a conversation about work, this did not mean the offence occurred ‘in the course of employment’ as otherwise the remit of employer’s vicarious liability would need to be extended to include all work-related conversations, regardless of their location. ...importance of appropriate behaviour at any social events... Bellman appealed, arguing that the High Court had overlooked the significant connection between the position of the MD and his actions. He pointed out that the incident occurred as a result of the MD ‘lecturing’ a number of employees on business decisions and future plans, thereby undertaking part of his ‘role’ in the business. When analysing this connection, the Court found that, in broad terms, the MD’s job was to be in overall charge of all business aspects. The MD was also adjudged to be responsible for the management of junior employees and would therefore feel that
maintaining his managerial authority was an important part of the role. With the above in mind, the Court found there was a sufficient connection between the MD’s field of responsibilities and the assault. It deemed that the assault took place as a result of the MD exercising his managerial authority to ‘lecture’ junior employees after being questioned over the company’s hiring decisions. The Court also confirmed that, even though the assault occurred at a separate venue to the official Christmas party, the fact that this was still arranged and paid for by the MD was another example of him undertaking the responsibilities of his role. As a result, the employer was found to be vicariously liable. This case, although rather specific, sets some important guidelines on when employers may be considered vicariously liable for the actions of staff at separate non-work events. Employers should explain to directors and senior staff the importance of appropriate behaviour at any social events, whether arranged by work or separately, and encourage all staff to avoid discussions that relate to work. This will help prevent circumstances arising where members of staff engage their workplace roles and
Recruitment Ltd, the Court of Appeal (‘the Court’) was asked to determine whether an employer could be vicariously liable for the actions of its managing director (MD) at an impromptu drinking session following the company’s Christmas party. The crux of this case centred around the claimant, Mr Bellman, who was physically assaulted by the MD following a dispute over a recent hiring decision. The assault, which occurred in the bar of a hotel, left Bellman with severe traumatic brain injuries; and the ensuing cognitive, emotional and behavioural consequences meant he was unlikely to ever return to paid employment. Following the incident, Bellman sought damages from the employer on the basis it was vicariously liable for the actions of the MD. This claim was based on the assault taking place during a drinking session arranged and paid for largely by the MD. In the first ruling, the High Court dismissed the claim and determined there was not enough of a connection between the MD’s employment and the assault. The High Court explained that, even though the
34
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | December 2018 / January 2019 | Issue 46
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker