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.
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.
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 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:
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.