Category Archives: Liability

Employer Found Not Liable For Work Related Assault

Naughty or niceThe Christmas festivities are now hopefully a distant memory for most of us. That is of course if your Christmas party was not a fertile source of inappropriate, and in some cases, violent behaviour of members of your workforce.

It is settled law that employers can be held liable for the acts of employees carried out in the course of employment, save where an employer is able to show they took all reasonable steps to avoid the act occurring. The principle of holding employers liable for the acts of their employees is known as vicarious liability. By way of example, in the case of Hawley v Luminar Leisure Limited, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that a nightclub exercised sufficient control over the actions of a doorman supplied to it by a security company, to deem the nightclub his “temporary” employer for the purposes of vicarious liability. The Court of Appeal found that the nightclub had sole vicarious liability and assessed the security company’s liability at nil.

This brings us to the more recent decision of Bellman v Northern Recruitment Limited, here the High Court ruled that an employer was not vicariously liable for a violent assault by its Managing Director on an employee at an impromptu drinking session after its Christmas party. This was because it was an ‘impromptu drink,’ which was not itself a part of the work Christmas party (despite the expectation that some or all of the bill would be met by the company), and because the mere fact that the assault had followed a discussion of work matters did not mean that it was necessarily ‘in the course of employment.’ The Court said that the incident had arisen in the context of ‘entirely voluntary and personal choices’ by those present to engage in a heavy drinking session.

What does this mean?

Employers may be able to escape liability in such circumstances, but it will depend on the facts of a particular case.

What should employers do?

Employers should exercise caution as this decision does not change the law, nor does it establish that post-Christmas party drinks are outside the scope of employment for vicarious liability purposes.

The possibility of inappropriate behaviour at work related social functions is entirely foreseeable and employers should be vigilant and proactive in ensuring that acceptable standards of behaviour are defined and communicated to all employees and workers.

For more information on how to manage the risk of vicarious liability, contact a member of the Employment Team at FG Solicitors on 01604 871143.

Your Company’s Liability For Unexpected Employee Shenanigans

SUMMARY:Naughty or nice

With the Christmas party season in full swing the courts have recently issued a judgment which proves a timely reminder of liabilities owed by employers when the festive frolics move from fun to violence.

The law:

Organisations are liable for reckless acts committed by their employees where it can be shown that the acts are so closely connected to their employment. The legal definition refers to employers being vicariously liable for such acts which are carried out in the “course of employment”.

The facts of the case:

In the case in question, the company – Northampton Recruitment Limited, held its Christmas party at a golf club. The party was attended by the Managing Director – John Major, its employees and their partners. After the party at the golf club had ended, some of the attendees, decided to return to the hotel at which some of their number were staying so that they could continue the festivities at an impromptu after-party.

The company paid for the taxis to take those guests to the hotel. It was also expected that the company would pay for some of their drinks at the hotel.

As the impromptu party at the hotel continued, conversation moved to work matters and a heated discussion ensued between Mr Major and one of the managers – Clive Bellman. At around 3am the heated discussion erupted into violence when Mr Major twice punched Mr Bellman. Mr Bellman was knocked unconscious, fell and suffered a serious brain injury as a result of the punches.

The court was asked to consider whether the company was vicariously liable for Mr Bellman’s injuries despite the assault happening after the company’s official Christmas party had ended. The court considered whether it could be said that, at the time Mr Major punched Mr Bellman, he was ‘acting in the course or scope of his employment”. In coming to its decision the court took account of the fact that:

  • Mr Major was authorised to act on the company’s behalf with a wide remit and that things were done ‘his way’.
  • An element of Mr Major’s role was  to motivate his employees – one such form of motivation being the company’s Christmas party, and
  • In his role as the Managing Director, Mr Major had sufficient discretion to authorise the company’s payment of taxis to, as well as accommodation and drinks at, the hotel.

However, the court decided that the fact that the offender was the Managing Director did not mean he should always be considered to be on duty when in the company of other employees. The court also made it clear that, although the subject of conversation giving rise to the assault was work –related, this in itself did not bring it the incident into “the course of employment”. The court concluded that, as the incident happened after the company’s official party ended without incident and at a time when the employees each took a personal decision to continue drinking heavily (albeit to some extent at the company’s expense), the incident was so far removed from Mr Major’s employment that the company could not be treated as vicariously liable.

Although a sad story, the court’s decision in this instance will come of some relief to employers. To ensure that your company’s parties and festivities can be enjoyed by all in the spirit in which they are intended, now may be the time to issue a gentle reminder to all that conduct rules are equally applicable at work related functions and social events regardless of whether they take place on/off site or in/out of normal working hours.

Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2016] EWHC 3104 (QB) 


If you would like advice about any of the issues raised in this article please contact:

+44 (0) 1604 871143

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice.

FGWorks April 2016

FGWorks April 2016With the latest updates on tribunal awards, avoiding discrimination and employer liability, we are excited to share the latest edition of our FGWorks newsletter!

Please feel free to forward FGWorks to any of your colleagues and contacts who it may be of interest to.

Your feedback is always important to us as we continually strive to improve and develop the services we offer. Please send any feedback to:

To view further news updates or for any other information, please visit: