From Festivities to Liabilities
As we approach the festive period, many employers will be celebrating this moment with their employees by hosting Christmas events for the workplace. Although harassment discrimination and victimisation at work can happen at any time, risks are usually heightened during the festive season. This is due to workplace parties often taking place in the evening, outside of working hours and commonly involving alcohol. As a result of this, Christmas parties present potential risks for employers, particularly when it comes to vicarious liability.
What is Vicarious Liability?
Vicarious liability refers to a situation where one party is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another. This principle most often applies in the context of Employers’ Liability where the employer assumes liability for the conduct of their employees during work related activities. Although it is not always obvious, Christmas parties are likely to be considered as work-related activities, and an extension of the workplace, despite it usually occurring after working hours, and not technically in the office. Employers may incur liability for acts of discrimination, harassment, or victimisation committed by their employees, irrespective of whether the employer had knowledge of such conduct. This underscores that vicarious liability constitutes a material legal risk for companies looking to plan an annual Christmas party. The case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd demonstrates this risk.
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2214
In this case, Northampton Recruitment Ltd (the Company), hosted a Christmas party in 2011. After the party, several employees, including Mr Major (Managing Director at the Company) and Mr Bellman (Sales Manager at the Company), went to a hotel for unplanned drinks. The Company paid for taxis and was expected to cover some drinks. During a heated discussion about work matters, Mr Major assaulted Mr Bellman, causing severe brain injury. Mr Bellman subsequently claimed the company was vicariously liable for Mr Major’s actions.
Initially, The High Court held that the company was not vicariously liable for Mr Major’s actions. The post-party drinks at the hotel were considered separate from the official Christmas party and entirely voluntary. The Court found that the assault arose from personal choices to engage in heavy drinking, and merely discussing work matters did not transform the social interaction into one occurring in the course of employment. There was insufficient connection between Mr Major’s role as Managing Director and the incident; therefore, the claim was dismissed.
The Claimant appealed on the basis that there was a sufficient connection between Mr Major’s position as Managing Director and his wrongful conduct to render the Defendant liable. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, applying the ‘sufficient connection’ test established in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11. It held that while the post-party drinks were voluntary and separate from the official event, they occurred on the same evening as a company-funded work function organised by Mr Major, who had fulfilled managerial duties throughout the night. When his authority was challenged, he asserted his position in a manner connected to his role as Managing Director. Given his broad remit and dominant position, the Court found a sufficient link between his employment and the assault, rendering the Company vicariously liable.
The position now
Vicarious liability continues to evolve, as highlighted in Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB [2023] UKSC 15. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the two-stage test: first whether the relationship is akin to employment; second, whether the wrongful act is so closely connected to that role that it can fairly be regarded as occurring in the course of employment. In BXB, although the elder’s position was akin to employment, the assault stemmed from personal friendship rather than his religious duties, so liability was denied. This decision clarifies that a mere casual link is insufficient; there must be a strong connection between the role and the wrongdoing. Employers should remain vigilant, as courts continue to apply this test strictly, particularly in social or informal setting.
What does this mean for employers?
The decision in Bellman V Northampton Recruitment Ltd underscores the potential exposure employers face during work-related social events, particularly where alcohol is involved. Although vicarious liability does not make employers guarantors of employee behaviours, the Court of Appeal confirmed that liability may arise where there is a sufficiently close connection between an employee’s role and their wrongful act. More recently, the Supreme Court in Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB, reaffirmed the strict application of the two-stage test, emphasising that liability will only arise where the wrongful act is so closely connected to the duties of the role that it can fairly be regarded as occurring in the course of employment. To mitigate these risks, employers should implement clear policies on expected conduct at work functions, communicate the consequences of misconduct and take practical steps such as limiting free alcohol and appointing responsible staff to oversee events. These measures not only help maintain appropriate standards but also reduce the likelihood of disputes and claims arising from festive celebrations.
