VL: Relationship akin to Employment

Question 1

JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust

Answer 1

Facts?
C sought damages for sexual abuse and rape carried out by parish priest whilst living in children’s home run my nuns.

Principle? Court accepted priest not employee of Roman Catholic diocese (no contract between Trust and priest, T had no control over priest and priest did not get remunerated). BUT – sympathetic – relationship ‘akin to employment’.

Policy concerns important.

Question 2

Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools

Answer 2

Institute held vicariously liable for acts of brothers supplied to teach in residential school who abused pupils.

Brothers appointed verbally, Institute could not dismiss them, neither employees nor independent contractors.

Five key issues to consider:
(1) Employer more likely to have means to compensate than claimant.

(2) Tort will have been committed as result of activity being undertaken by tortfeasor on employer’s behalf.
(3) Tortfeasor’s activity likely to be part of the business activity of employer.
(4) By allowing tortfeasor to carry on activity, employer created risk of tort being committed.
(5) Tortfeasor will have been under control of employer to extent.

Question 3

Cox v Ministry of Justice

Answer 3

Facts?
Cox was catering manager – injured when prisoner negligently dropped sack of rice onto her back. Prisoner was paid small amount of money but in all other ways, ER did not exist.

Principle?
Applied JGE – found prison service vicariously liable for torts of prisoner working within catering section.

Looked at (2) and (4) – D should be liable – tortfeasor was carrying out activity on behalf of D which was essential to the business – D therefore created risk of tort being committed.

Policy considerations – fair, just and reasonable.