The High Court has held that an employer was not vicariously liable for a managing director's "brutal assault" of an employee during a drinking session after the employer's Christmas party.
The Supreme Court has held that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was vicariously liable for the negligence of a prisoner who injured a member of staff while carrying out kitchen work.
The Court of Appeal has held that creating the risk of harm in the workplace was not sufficient to impose liability on the employer for the "frolicsome but reckless" conduct of an employee.
The Court of Appeal has affirmed that, where an employee inflicts violence on another employee or third party, the vicarious liability of the employer for the employee's violent act will depend on the closeness of the violent act to the employee's employment.
In Hawley v Luminar Leisure and others [2006] EWCA Civ 18 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that responsibility for controlling a worker passed to his "temporary deemed employer", and it was unsuccessful in its attempt to persuade the court to make a finding of dual vicarious liability.
In Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others, the Court of Appeal holds that more than one "employer" can be vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee, overturning a long-standing assumption that it is possible in law only for one employer to be so liable.