Employment Disputes - Do You Owe a Duty of Care to Your Employees?
Not when defending claims based on the alleged misconduct of the employees, held the Supreme Court in a recent case.
James-Bowen and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
In December 2003, four police officers serving in the Metropolitan Police Service took part in the arrest of a suspected terrorist, BA. BA subsequently made allegations that the officers had seriously assaulted and injured him during the arrest.
The Initial Claim
On 18 October 2007, BA commenced civil proceedings against the Commissioner. He alleged that the Commissioner was vicariously liable for the serious assaults that the officers had inflicted on him. The claim was settled with an admission of liability by the Commissioner and an apology for the “gratuitous violence” to which BA had been subjected by the officers.
After the civil claim was settled, the officers were prosecuted in the Crown Court for assault. A jury acquitted them following disclosure of evidence which undermined BA's version of events.
The Officers' Claim Against the Commissioner
On 23 September 2013, the officers commenced the present proceedings against the Commissioner. They sought compensation for reputational, economic and psychiatric damage owing from the admission of liability made by the Commissioner when the claim brought by BA was settled.
The case was originally struck out. However, on appeal the Court of Appeal held that it was arguable that the Commissioner owed a duty of care to the officers to safeguard their economic and reputational interests, and that this extended to the Commissioner’s conduct of the litigation.
The Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Final Decision
The appeal was allowed unanimously by the Supreme Court.
Where an employer is sued, vicariously, for the alleged misconduct of its employees, it will not owe a duty of care to those employees to safeguard their reputational and economic interests in the conduct of litigation.
The Supreme Court made two points of particular relevant for employers in general:
- "An employer had to be free to defend a claim based on vicarious liability in the way he saw fit, “without having constantly to look over his shoulder” for fear that his conduct of the defence might expose him to a satellite claim by his employees."
- Implying a duty of care would "conflict fundamentally" with the employer's own interests in defending litigation brought against him.
What Does This Mean for Employers?
This case will be relevant to all employers who are required to defend civil claims brought against them (as employer) on a vicarious liability basis for the actions of their employees.
While there will be no duty of care to protect the reputation and economic interests of the employees in the way the employer deals with any such claims, employers may still wish to consider the effect of their conduct during litigation as this may be impact on staff morale and wellbeing and the stability of the workforce.