Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11

KEY POINTS

1. In assessing vicarious liability, the court must (1) consider the role and responsibilities assigned by the employer to the employee (i.e., the nature of the job), and (2) determine if there is a significant link between the employee's position and their wrongful actions, justifying the employer's liability.

2. In the context of this case, the court considered that Mr. Khan's job responsibilities included interacting with customers, which was assigned to him by his employer. Furthermore, when Mr. Khan followed the claimant to his car and ordered him not to return to the petrol station, such is deemed an order by Mr. Khan purporting to act on behalf of his employer's business.

FACTS

• The claimant visited the respondent's premises in Small Heath, Birmingham, which included a petrol station and a kiosk. He asked an employee, Mr. Amjid Khan, at the kiosk if he could print some documents from a USB stick, but Mr. Khan refused rudely.

• When the claimant protested, Mr. Khan responded with racist and threatening language and ordered him to leave. As the claimant returned to his car, Mr. Khan followed him and punched him on the left temple.

• Despite the claimant not displaying any aggressive or abusive behaviour, Mr. Khan subjected him to a serious attack.

COMMENTARY

• This case clarified and reaffirmed the principles of vicarious liability in the context of an employee's wrongful actions during the course of employment. It highlights that employers can be held responsible for the behaviour of their employees, even in situations where the wrongful acts go beyond the employee's normal job duties.