RMC v MoP
For traditional employees, we use the economic reality/multiple test, which look at various factors such as regular pay, control of hours and work, uniform etc.
Mersey Docks v Cogins and Grffiths
For loaned employees, the presumption is the original employer is still responsible.
Hawley v Luminar Leisure
The secondary employee may be responsible for the loaned employee if they have a lot of control over the employee
Barclays
For non-traditional employees, we look at all details of the case to see if it is akin to employment. Where it is unclear, the test from Cox v MoJ can be used.
Cox v MoJ
There may be a relationship akin to employment where the work of the tortfeasor is integrated into D’s business (ie for no other business’ benefit), and the risk was created by D giving that work to T.
Morrisons (2020)
To work out if T’s activities have a close connection to employment, we look at what T did, what they were authorised to do, and ask if it is fair to say they were still doing their work (rather than it being a personal activity)
Mohamud v Morrisons
For intentional wrongdoings, the tort is more likely to be connected if it is done on work premises, during work times, and the issue was a work related issue
N v CCoM
For intentional wrongdoings, the tort is less likely to be connected if it is done outside of work premises and time, and for a personal reason.
Twine v Beans Express
For unintentional wrongdoings, the tort is less likely to be connected if it is not really doing the job, does not benefit the business, and is for a personal reason
Rose v Plenty
For unintentional wrongdoings, the tort is more likely to be connected if it is stilldoing the job, benefits the business, and is for a business related reason
Civil Liability (Contribiton) Act 1978
If D is found liable, they may recover damages by suing T
VL is…
where D is held liable for a tort they did not commit
due to their relationship with T.
