Smith v Stages
(Vicarious Liability)
N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
(Vicarious Liability)
The court determined the Chief Constable was not vicariously liable.
Reasoning: The assault was not “closely connected” to the officer’s work. The fact that the officer was in uniform merely allowed him to gain the claimant’s trust, but the act itself was a personal one, not an act performed in the course of his duties.
Lister v Hesley Hall
(Vicarious Liability)
→ Hesley Hall Ltd was vicariously liable because the warden’s acts were closely connected to his employment duties of caring for the children, making it fair and just to impose liability.
Mohamud v Morrisons Supermarkets
(Vicarious Liability)
→ Morrisons was vicariously liable because the employee’s assault was closely connected to his duties of serving customers — he acted in the course of his employment, albeit in a violent and wrongful way.
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment
(Vicarious Liability)
The Court of Appeal held that the employer (Northampton Recruitment Ltd) was vicariously liable for an assault committed by its managing director on an employee after a work Christmas party.
Morrisons supermarket v Various Claimants
(Vicarious Liability)
→ Morrisons was not vicariously liable, because the employee’s deliberate data leak was a personal act of vengeance, not closely connected to his employment duties.
Christian Brothers Case
(Vicarious Liability)
A large number of men (C) alleged historical sex abuse from when they were at school. The tortfeasors were brothers of ‘the institute’. ‘The institute’ (D) did not own the school but their members acted as the headmaster and teachers of the school. The members were contractually employed, not by ‘the institute’ but by the school.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that a Catholic Institute was vicariously liable for acts committed by the teachers even though it did not employ them.
This Case set out 5 criteria to be considered when establishing if a relationship is ‘akin’ to employment.
Cox v Ministry of Justice
(Vicarious Liability)
HELD: Initially the trial judge found that the prison service was not vicariously liable for the prisoners negligence. He focused on whether the relationship between the prison service and the prisoner was akin to that between an employer and employee and concluded that it was not - > this was appealed in the CoA and they stated that the relationship between the prisoner and the prison service was similar to that of employer and employee as the prison service was benefitting from the prisoners work.
Armes v Nottinghamshire CC
(Vicarious Liability)
The SC clarified that foster parents are in a relationship ‘akin to employment’ with the local authority.
Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB
(Vicarious Liability)
The rape case with the Jehovah’s church elder.
The institution was found vicariously liable for the rape in court. D appealed, and the CoA upheld the decision, D appealed again, and the SC said that they were not vicariously liable
Hawley v Luminar Leisure LTD
(Vicarious Liability)
A Bouncer assaulted a customer outside a club. He was employed by specialist suppliers.
HELD; The court decided that the club employed him as they exercised so much control over how he should do his work. The club was vicariously liable.
What was the case in Vicarious Liability which outlined the Integration test?
Which Lord?
Lord Denning established that a worker will be an employee if his work is fully integrated into the business. If a persons work is only an accessory to the business, that person is not an employee.
Ready Mixed Concrete v MPNI
(Economic reality test)
This test considers various factors which may indicate employment or self employment. The courts will look at factors like:
-Ownership of tools and equipment
-Method of payment
-Tax, National insurance, Pension deducted from wages
-How the person describes themselves
-Amount of independence and flexibility
Strictland V Hayes Borough Council
(Delegated Legislation)
A By-law prohibiting the singing of any obscene song and the use of obscene language in general.
HELD: unreasonable and therefore Ultravires. The Bylaw was too widely drawn as it covered acts in private as well as in public.
R (Ann Summers Ltd) v Jobcentre Plus
(Delegated Legislation)
The job Centre refused to advertise jobs in Anne Summers.
HELD: The court held that the Job Centre did not have the power to do this and declared it void.
Aylesbury Mushroom
(Delegated Legislation)
The ministry of Labour failed to follow the correct procedure as he did not consult the Mushroom growers Association. His order was declared invalid.
Durand Academy v OFSTED (2017)
(Delegated Legislation)
DA brought a case of judicial review against OFSTED when they were judged as inadequate. The academy complained because of no appeals process. HELD: HC concluded that it was not a rational or fair process and because of this, there was no real process preventing them from pursuing a substantive challenge.
The dangerous dogs Act 1991
(Delegated Legislation)
certain Dog breeds were banned by the home secretary due to multiple attacks. This law has been criticised for being too rash and making problems.
XL bullies were added to the list In 2024.
Boddington v British Transport Police
(Delegated legislation: Bylaws)
Peter Boddington was found to be smoking in a non-smoking carriage on a train (smoking was prohibited by By-law) he was fined £10. Peter Boddington challenged the validity of this by-law as it was not made by Parliament.
HELD: The lords said that Bylaws must be followed, and if broken then a fine is payable.
Donoghue v Stevenson
(Judicial Precedent: binding)
Donoghue found a snail in his ginger beer. Stevenson (the manufacturer) argued it wasn’t their fault because they didn’t sell it to him directly. HELD: The ratio decidendi made by the HoL was that the manufacturer has a duty of care for its products.
This case initially created the concept of a ‘duty of care’ through the neighbour principle - individuals have a DoC to anyone they ought to have thought could potentially be affected by the act or omission.
Daniels v White
(Judicial precedent: binding)
Daniels consumed corrosive fluid from a lemonade produced by White. They said it’s not their fault because they didnt sell it.
HELD: They followed the ratio decidendi of the case of Donoghue v Stevenson that the manufacturer has a duty of Care.
Brown
(Judicial Precedent)
Gay S&M porn.
HELD: you cannot consent to GBH.
The Obiter dicta under this was that You can only consent to tattooing and branding.
-
Paper 1 SA: Criminal courts and ley people23
-
delegated legislation - civil26
-
judicial precedent - civil55
-
statutory interpretation - civil9
-
civil courts and ADR - paper 14
-
ALL CASES93
-
ALL ACTS OF PARLIAMENT2
-
Defences cases24
-
Non fatal Offences46
-
PROBLEM QUESTION TESTS: CRIMINAL13
-
Occupiers Liability27
-
Fatal offences6
-
Theft, Robbery and Burglary0
-
Legal personell50
-
Nature of law - law and morality theories45
-
Contract Law - Formation57
-
Contract Law - Terms81
-
Contract Law - Misrepresentation61
-
Contract Law - Economic Duress27
-
Contract Law - Remedies0
-
Contract Law - Discharge36
-
All Contract Cases1
-
Nature of Law - law and society34
-
Attempts2
-
PQ TESTS: CIVIL1
-
PQ TESTS: CONTRACT6
-
PQ TESTS: CRIMINAL0
-
PQ TESTS: Tort0
