Christmas Party Assault - when will a company be vicariously liable for the acts of its employees?
The High Court held that a company was not vicariously liable for a violent attack on an employee, perpetrated by the managing director during an impromptu drink after the work Christmas party in the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd.
An employer can be liable for the acts committed by an employee if there is a sufficient connection between the acts and the employee's employment. This is known as vicarious liability. It does not matter that the employer itself has committed no wrong.
Facts
In 2010, Mr Major, who was the Managing Director of Northampton Recruitment Ltd (the Defendant) recruited Mr Bellman (the Claimant) as a Sales Manager.
In 2011, the company's Christmas party took place at a golf club and was followed by an 'impromptu drink' which around half of the party guests attended, at a hotel where some of the employees were staying. The company paid the taxi fares for the journey to the hotel. It was also expected that the company would continue paying for the drinks, even though this was not a pre-planned extension to the Christmas party.
A conversation between those present at the hotel started with general chit chat before turning to work matters at around 2.00am. Mr Major lost his temper when a controversial topic arose which led to him punching Mr Bellman twice. Mr Bellman suffered severe injuries as a result of the assault and it is unlikely he will work again as a result.
Mr Bellman brought a claim against the company on the basis it was vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Major.
Decision
The High Court held that the company was not vicariously liable for Mr Major's actions and dismissed the claim. It found that there was insufficient connection between the incident and Mr Major's employment and that the incident occurred due to the 'voluntary and personal choices' of those involved.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the following factors:
- Remit of Mr Major - as Managing Director of the company, Mr Major had a wide remit and things were done 'his way'. He was the decision maker in terms of company expenditure which presumably included making the decisions in relation to the company paying for the Christmas party, drinks and taxis. However, this did notmean that he was 'on duty' simply because there were other employees present when the assault took place.
- No close connection - the impromptu drink at the hotel was unplanned and was not a seamless extension of the work Christmas party, and therefore a line could be drawn between the two. It did not matter that the assault had occurred following a work-related discussion.
- Risk of harm - the court considered the extent to which the employment relationship put Mr Bellman at risk of harm. Even though the consumption of alcohol can bring an increased risk of confrontation, it is routinely supplied at Christmas parties and enjoyed safely and it was notable that the company's Christmas party passed without incident. The court found that the increased risk of confrontation arising from alcohol from drinks at the hotel, even if the company was expected to pay, was too far removed from employment to support any finding of vicarious liability.
Best Practice
Employers should exercise caution as incidents taking place during a post-Christmas party event could still give rise to a vicarious liability finding, whether planned or impromptu. This was a very fact sensitive decision - as the outcome of the case of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc shows.
It is likely this decision will be appealed, particularly as the assault had such serious implications on Mr Bellman.