ABSTRACT
Vicarious liability remains one of the most contested doctrines in tort law, sitting uneasily with the fault-based foundations of the common law. By imposing strict liability on employers for torts committed by employees, it has attracted sustained criticism for undermining corrective justice and legal certainty. This article examines whether vicarious liability continues to serve the interests of justice following its expansive development after Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. It argues that post-Lister jurisprudence loosened the doctrine’s boundaries, producing unpredictability and blurring the distinction between vicarious liability and nondelegable duties. However, recent Supreme Court decisions, including WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants, Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants, and Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB, mark a deliberate retrenchment. This recalibration restores coherence while preserving vicarious liability’s role as a mechanism of loss distribution and social justice.
Efti, Sammam Junaid, Vicarious Liability and the Interests of Justice: Expansion, Retrenchment, and the Search for Coherence (December 20, 2025).
Leave a Reply