In the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd, the Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether an employer could be considered vicariously liable for the actions of their Managing Director (MD) at an impromptu drinking session following the company’s Christmas party.
This particular case centred around the claimant, Mr Bellman, who was physically assaulted by the company’s MD following a dispute over a recent hiring decision. The assault, which occurred in the bar of a hotel lobby, caused Bellman to suffer severe traumatic brain injuries and the cognitive, emotional and behavioural consequences meant he was unlikely to ever return to paid employment.
Following the incident, Bellman proceeded to seek damages from the employer on the basis that they were vicariously liable for the actions of the MD. This claim was based on the assault taking place during a drinking session that was arranged and paid for largely by the MD himself.
This claim was first heard by the High Court who dismissed Bellman’s claim and determined that there was not enough of a connection between the MD’s employment and the assault. In their reasoning they explained that, even though the assault took place following a conversation about work, this did not mean the offence occurred ‘in the course of employment’ as otherwise the remit of the employer’s vicarious liability would need to be extended to include all work-related conversations, regardless of their location.
Bellman appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeal, believing the High Court overlooked the significant connection between the position of MD and his actions. Bellman pointed out that the incident occurred as a result of the MD ‘lecturing’ a number of employees on business decisions and future plans, thereby undertaking part of his ‘role’ in the business. When analysing this connection, the Court of Appeal found that, broadly speaking, the MD’s job was to be in overall charge of all business aspects, including the responsibility of managing junior employees and would therefore feel that maintaining his managerial authority was an important part of the role.
With the above in mind, the Court of Appeal found that there was a sufficient connection between the MD’s field of responsibilities and the assault. They deemed that the assault took place as a result of the MD exercising his managerial authority to ‘lecture’ junior employees after being questioned over the company’s hiring decisions. The Court also confirmed that, even though the assault occurred at a separate venue to the official Christmas party, the fact that this was still arranged and paid for by the MD was a further example of him undertaking the responsibilities of his role. As a result, the employer was found to be vicariously liable for the actions.
Although it is not necessarily in the field of employment law, this case sets some important guidelines on when employers may be considered vicariously liable for the actions of staff at separate non-work events. With this in mind, employers should explain to staff, including directors, the importance of appropriate behaviour at any social events either arranged by work, or separately arranged, encouraging all staff to avoid discussions that relate to work. This will help prevent circumstances arising where members of staff engage in their workplace roles or activities during social events which may leave the company liable for their actions.