Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10 – Law Journals

Vicarious liability: Planning an office party? Read this first.

Matthew White looks at the risks for employers in light of the decision in Shelbourne v Cancer Research ‘For an employer to be vicariously liable for a wrong it will not suffice for a claimant merely to show some connection between the wrongdoer/wrong and work or the workplace, no matter how tenuous.’ In Shelbourne v …

Continue reading "Vicarious liability: Planning an office party? Read this first."

This post is only available to members.

Vicarious liability: Moving with the times

Andrew Sugarman and Megan Crowther consider the extent of employers’ liability for personal injury in this rapidly changing area ‘Employers need to realise that their responsibilities are probably wider than was previously thought, with vicarious liability for the wrongs of others stretching beyond the classic master/servant relationship and stretching into conduct that might not previously …

Continue reading "Vicarious liability: Moving with the times"

This post is only available to members.

Sports injuries: Dangerous games

Jonathan Bellamy explores the issues that arise in the growth area of professional sport claims ‘As the incidence and value of sports injury claims have increased, so insurers have responded by tailoring their policies to exclude or limit the level of indemnity for personal injury claims between contestants.’ During the last 20 years there has …

Continue reading "Sports injuries: Dangerous games"

This post is only available to members.

Vicarious liability: You can’t bank on it

S T

Kate Raybould has some bad news for employers ‘The bank’s key contention was that the status of independent contractor afforded a defence to vicarious liability and recent case law developments had not changed that position.’ The parameters of vicarious liability have been under siege recently, with a raft of decisions expanding the limits of the …

Continue reading "Vicarious liability: You can’t bank on it"

This post is only available to members.

Liability: Pure omissions and public authorities

Ruth Kennedy considers the basis upon which liability can be established ‘The general principle is that there is no liability for the wrongdoing of a third party, even where that wrongdoing is foreseeable.‘ This article focuses on liability for pure omissions in tort with a particular focus on public authorities. The general principle of the …

Continue reading "Liability: Pure omissions and public authorities"

This post is only available to members.