CASES - vicarious liability

Question 2

Barclays Bank Plc V Various claimants

Answer 2

Held - Dr bates was not an employee but was an independent contractor and therefore was not a relationship akin to employment.
Bank not liable for Drs actions

Question 3

Catholic Brothers

Answer 3

Held - factors to consider it fair, just and reasonable to hold the employer VL:
1. D more likely to have means of compensation
2. Tort committed as result of activity being undertaken on behalf of D
3. Tortfeasors activity likely to be part of Ds business activity
4. D created the risk of tort by employing tortfeasor
5. D maintains degree of control over tortfeasor

(COBRA)
Compensation
On behalf of D
Business activity
Risk
A degree of control

Question 4

Rose V Plenty

Answer 4

Held - liable. Plenty was doing their job in a prohibited way, the fact the employers warned plenty did not remove liability

Question 5

Shelbourne V CRUK

Answer 5

Held - not liable. Was not within the field of activities entrusted by CRUK but rather a frolic of his own

Question 6

Mohamud V Morrisons

Answer 6

Held - liable. The employee was acting within the field of activities (interacting with customers), the abuse was closely connected

Question 7

WM Morrisons supermarket PLC V Various claimants

Answer 7

Held - not liable. The data breach was committed as a vendetta to deliberately harm them, with no benefit to the employer not closely connected.