Application of the ‘close connection’ test PDF

Preview

Summary

This document provides: Application of the ‘close connection’ test supported by Mattis v Pollock (2003), Att Gen of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell (2004), Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church (2010)., and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets (2016)....

Description

Application of the ‘close connection’ test

Mattis v Pollock (2003).

The owner of a nightclub was held vicariously liable when Mattis, the claimant, suffered paraplegia following a stabbing by a ‘bouncer’ employed by the club. The doorman, Cranston, who was involved in a fight with other customers in the nightclub, was forced to flee when the claimant intervened. The doorman went home to arm himself with a knife and, intent on revenge, he returned to the vicinity of the club, where he stabbed the claimant.

Att Gen of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell (2004)

An off-duty police officer used his service revolver to shoot at two people in a bar due to personal jealousy. Vicarious liability was not established as his actions had no connection to his professional duties.

Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church (2010).

The question here was whether a Catholic priest’s sexual abuse of the claimant had been so closely connected with his employment as a priest that it would be fair and just to hold the Archdiocese which had employed him vicariously liable. The trial judge had found that the Catholic Church was not vicariously liable for the actions of the priest on the ground that he did not meet the claimant as part of his priestly duties and had not involved him in the activities of the Church itself. The priest had instead cultivated.

the claimant solely for the purpose of sexual abuse. The Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance decision, with Lord Neuberger observing that the issue, although very much fact-dependent, is ultimately one of law rather than of inference from facts. Here there was a sufficiently ‘close connection’ between the priest’s employment at the Church and the abuse which he inflicted on the claimant, and it was fair and just to impose vicarious liability for the abuse on his employer, the Archdiocese.

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets (2016)

The case involved an employee’s attack on a customer at a petrol station where the Supreme Court considered whether the nature of the employee’s job and his wrongful conduct made it right for the employer to be held liable. When Mohamud entered the kiosk at a supermarket petrol station, he was subjected to an unprovoked violent attack by the sales assistant. This began as racist verbal abuse in the kiosk; then the assistant followed the customer to his car and physically assaulted him.

The circumstances led the Court of Appeal to conclude that the employee’s attack was personally motivated and had nothing to do with his employment. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed and allowed the claimant’s appeal....