ABSTRACT
The analytical structure of vicarious liability, following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society, is embodied in essentially two inquiries. First, is there a close relationship between the primary tortfeasor and the defendant? Second, is there a close connection between the tort and the relationship identified in stage one? Since then, the Supreme Court was given the occasion to ‘take stock’ of how these two stages should be applied in the ‘companion cases’ of Cox v Ministry of Justice and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc. Three years after Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council was handed down by the Supreme Court, the court was once again asked to reflect on how far the law has gone in yet another ‘parallel cases’: Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants and WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants, which raised, again, intractable issues over the application of the first and second stage, respectively.
Sin, Ivan Cheuk Him, Vicarious Liability: A Tale of Two Cases (April 15, 2020). Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, forthcoming; City University of Hong Kong School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper.
First posted 2020-04-22 07:20:46
Leave a Reply