Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc - [2016] UKSC 11

Hilary Term

[2016] UKSC 11

On appeal from: [2014] EWCA Civ 116

JUDGMENT

Mr A M Mohamud (in substitution for Mr A Mohamud (deceased)) (Appellant) v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (Respondent)

before

Lord Neuberger, President

Lady Hale, Deputy President
Lord Dyson
Lord Reed
Lord Toulson

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

2 March 2016

Heard on 12 and 13 October 2015

Appellant Respondent

Joel Donovan QC Benjamin Browne QC

Adam Ohringer Roger Harris
Isabel Barter

(Instructed by Bar Pro (Instructed by Gordons

Bono Unit) LLP)

LORD TOULSON: (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Dyson and Lord Reed agree)
1. Vicarious liability in tort requires, first, a relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer, and secondly, a connection between that relationship and the
wrongdoer’s act or default, such as to make it just that the defendant should be held
legally responsible to the claimant for the consequences of the wrongdoer’s conduct.
In this case the wrongdoer was employed by the defendant, and so there is no issue about the first requirement. The issue in the appeal is whether there was sufficient
connection between the wrongdoer’s employment and his conduct towards the
claimant to make the defendant legally responsible. By contrast, the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, which was heard by the same division of the court at the same time, is concerned with the first requirement. The judgments are separate because the claims and issues are separate, but they are intended to be complementary to each other in their legal analysis. In preparing this judgment I
have had the benefit of Lord Reed’s judgment in Cox, and I agree fully with his
reasoning and conclusion.
2. The question in this appeal concerns an employer’s vicarious liability in tort

for an assault carried out by an employee. It is a subject which has troubled the courts on numerous occasions and the case law is not entirely consistent. In addressing the issues which it raises, it will be necessary to examine how the law in this area has developed, what stage it has reached and whether it is in need of significant change.
Facts
3. In this case the victim was a customer. I will call him the claimant although he sadly died from an illness unrelated to his claim before his appeal was heard by this court. The respondent company is a well known operator of a chain of supermarkets. It has premises in Small Heath, Birmingham, which include a petrol station. The petrol station has a kiosk with the usual display of goods and a counter
where customers pay for their purchases. One of the company’s employees was Mr
Amjid Khan. His job was to see that the petrol pumps and the kiosk were kept in good running order and to serve customers.
4. The claimant was of Somali origin. On the morning of 15 March 2008 he was on his way to take part with other members of his community in an event in London.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] UKSC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court was asked to decide the scope of an employer's vicarious liability for the tortious actions of an employee. The case involved an unprovoked racial assault on a customer by an employee of a petrol station. The issue was whether the employer should be held vicariously liable for the employee's actions. The court held that the employer was vicariously liable because the employee's assault was closely connected with his employment. The court found that the employee's job involved serving customers, and his assault on the customer was a misuse of the position entrusted to him by his employer. The court rejected the argument that the close connection test for vicarious liability should be replaced with a new test based on whether a reasonable observer would consider the employee to be acting in a representative capacity at the time of the tort. The court held that the close connection test was sufficiently flexible and rooted in justice to determine vicarious liability. The court concluded that the employer should be held liable for the employee's actions because it was just to do so under the principle of social justice.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal would be allowed, and the respondent (the employer) would be held vicariously liable for the employee's assault on the claimant (the customer). The claimant's appeal was therefore successful.

Orders