Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Mattis v Pollock

[2003] 1 WLR 2158

Case summary last updated at 20/01/2020 18:17 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Mattis v Pollock

D employed an unlicensed bouncer, C, who stabbed a person at the club, P. P sued D for the damages as vicariously liable for C. CA held that D was liable following the broad approach, there was sufficient connection between the tortious act and what the employer expected of him or authorised him to do, and it would be “fair and just” to impose such a liability, taking into account the employer-employee relationship.
Judge LJ: The test is: “was the assault “so closely connected” with what D authorised or expected of C in the performance of his employment as doorman at his nightclub, that it would be fair and just to conclude that D is vicariously liable for the damage”. The fact that C would have been expected to use violence in the course of his employment anyway suggests that the relationship between the assault and the expected/authorised conduct was sufficiently closely connected. 

Mattis v Pollock crops up in following areas of law