Background

The defendant in the case, Northampton Recruitment, was a franchise business recruiting commercial drivers for temporary work. In December 2011, the company held its annual Christmas party at a golf club in Northamptonshire. The party passed without incident.

Afterwards a number of guests retired to the nearby Hilton Hotel where they had rooms for the night. Some of that group continued drinking into the early hours of the morning when a dispute arose between the company’s managing director, John Major, and a sales manager, Clive Bellman. In an unprovoked attack Mr Major struck Mr Bellman twice and with such force that his subordinate fell to the floor, where he hit his head and fell unconscious. Mr Bellman suffered serious brain damage as a result.

Mr Major was arrested for assault, but the criminal case did not proceed after Mr Bellman refused to press charges. At the time Mr Bellman said he could not believe it had been Mr Major’s intention to harm a childhood friend.

The claim

The question for the High Court to decide was whether Northampton Recruitment, as the employer of Mr Major, should be vicariously liable for his assault on Mr Bellman. The High Court applied the ‘close connection’ test by which the company would be liable for Mr Major’s actions if his misconduct was found to be so closely connected with the work he was employed to do that it could be said that he had been acting in the ordinary course of his employment.

High Court decision

The High Court acknowledged that as Mr Major was the managing director of Northampton Recruitment he had a wide range of duties, including discretion as to expenditure. However, despite the liberty enjoyed by Mr Major in that role, this did not mean that he was to be regarded as being always on duty even when in the presence of other company staff or discussing work matters.

The High Court drew a line between the activities that took place at the Christmas party and the spontaneous post-party drinks at the hotel. The Court found that the Christmas party was clearly connected to Mr Major’s employment because there was an expectation that employees would attend the party, while the early-morning drinking session was beyond the scope of his employment as attendance there was voluntary. This was the Court’s finding despite the altercation stemming from work-related matters and the company footing the bill for the drinks.

“…there was insufficient connection between the position in which Mr Major was employed and the assault to make it right for the Defendant to be held liable…” High Court

The High Court’s decision shows the importance of the time and place at which the misconduct occurred to the finding of vicarious liability. Had the altercation taken place at the Christmas party, then the company would likely have been found liable for its director’s actions. In any event, an employee who instigates a fight may face criminal prosecution, which could have serious and long-term negative consequences for their career, in addition to internal disciplinary proceedings that might find them facing summary dismissal for gross misconduct. Sobering thoughts indeed!

Photograph: “Wine bottles” by Joel Herzog.