Sexual Abuse and the Changing Nature of Vicarious Liability
Case note
Sexual abuse and the changing nature of vicarious liability
Case: Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools [2012] UKSC 5: [2012] 3 W.L.R. 1319 (SC)
According to Steele, vicarious liability is defined as an employer being found liable for the tort of his or her employee, provided that tort is sufficiently connected with the individual’s employment. On the face of it, this definition seems straightforward and clear, however you only need to look at the plethora of cases which have come to light in recent years to see that the reality is very different. The case of Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, (CCWS) is the latest case which has served to further develop the doctrine of vicarious liability. I will begin this case note by setting out the facts of the case and what the court held. After analysing the reasoning of the court, I will explain why this case will have minimal implications on future ones.
Facts
This case concerns a group action by 170 men in respect of abuse to which they allege they were subjected at the School, by Brother James and by other brothers. The claims are against two groups of defendants. The first group consists of the managers of the school from 1973, who inherited the statutory liabilities of the former managers and entered into contracts of employment with the brother teachers (‘the Middlesbrough Defendants’). The second group consisted of members of the Institute (‘the Institute Defendants’). As a preliminary issue, the High Court held that the Institute Defendants were not vicariously liable for the acts of abuse committed by brothers at the School. The Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. The Middlesbrough Defendants sought to establish that the institute shared dual vicarious liability with them and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Held
It was held by the Supreme Court that in addition to the Middlesbrough defendants, the institute was vicariously liable
Sexual abuse and the changing nature of vicarious liability
Case: Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools [2012] UKSC 5: [2012] 3 W.L.R. 1319 (SC)
According to Steele, vicarious liability is defined as an employer being found liable for the tort of his or her employee, provided that tort is sufficiently connected with the individual’s employment. On the face of it, this definition seems straightforward and clear, however you only need to look at the plethora of cases which have come to light in recent years to see that the reality is very different. The case of Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, (CCWS) is the latest case which has served to further develop the doctrine of vicarious liability. I will begin this case note by setting out the facts of the case and what the court held. After analysing the reasoning of the court, I will explain why this case will have minimal implications on future ones.
Facts
This case concerns a group action by 170 men in respect of abuse to which they allege they were subjected at the School, by Brother James and by other brothers. The claims are against two groups of defendants. The first group consists of the managers of the school from 1973, who inherited the statutory liabilities of the former managers and entered into contracts of employment with the brother teachers (‘the Middlesbrough Defendants’). The second group consisted of members of the Institute (‘the Institute Defendants’). As a preliminary issue, the High Court held that the Institute Defendants were not vicariously liable for the acts of abuse committed by brothers at the School. The Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. The Middlesbrough Defendants sought to establish that the institute shared dual vicarious liability with them and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Held
It was held by the Supreme Court that in addition to the Middlesbrough defendants, the institute was vicariously liable
Bibliography: Steele J, TORT LAW: TEXT, CASES AND MATERIALS ( 2ND Edn. OUP 2010) Tan D, “A sufficiently close relationship akin to employment” [2013] L.Q.R [ 1 ]. Jenny Steele, TORT LAW: TEXT, CASES AND MATERIALS ( 2ND Edn. OUP 2010) 572 [ 2 ]