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.

High Court

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.

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, the High Court decided he could not be regarded as being always on duty even when in the presence of other company staff or discussing work matters.

The High Court accordingly decided that there was insufficient connection between the position in which Mr Major was employed and the assault to make it right for the Northampton Recruitment to be held liable. Our report on this judgment can be found here.

Mr Bellman appealed the decision.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal effectively reversed the High Court’s decision. It found that there was a sufficiently close connection between Mr Major’s job as managing director and the assault to make it fair that Northampton Recruitment should be liable for his actions.

Key to the court’s decision was the very wide remit given to Mr Major in his role as the company’s managing director. It noted that the company was small, Mr Major had responsibility for all management decisions and he would have seen the maintenance of managerial authority as a central part of his role. The Court of Appeal viewed the afterparty discussion that preceded the fight as a means of Mr Major asserting his authority. The assault was a similar exercise of authority, albeit that by doing so Mr Major misused the position entrusted to him.

“He chose to wear his metaphorical managing director’s hat and to deliver a lecture to his subordinates. He was purporting to use his position and drove home his managerial authority, with which he had been entrusted, with the use of blows.” Court of Appeal

The appeal was allowed.

Employers may be relieved to note that the Court of Appeal felt that similar cases of vicarious liability are unlikely to be common. Mr Major’s executive role with unrestricted authority was vital to the Court of Appeal’s finding that he was acting within the course of his employment – that the assault was a warped way of him exercising his managerial authority. Most employees are uhlikely to be so unrestricted in their employment activities.

Photograph: “Toast with white wine” by Karolina Grabowska.