A critical analysis of the legal history of vicarious liability and its applications

Abstract

This thesis presents an examination of the historical developments of vicarious liability law in the English legal system over the past 200 years. The developments considered date from the principles laid down in Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39 to the most recent case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124. The various tests for employment status and the course of employment are discussed, with specific analysis into why the tests have changed and developed. Case law and academic criticism is presented to emphasise how the changes have had a positive or negative impact on the clarity and fairness of the area of law. The main focus of the piece is based upon the decisions of A M Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc [2016] UKSC 11 and Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10. Specifically, how they have changed the principles of vicarious liability and what principles they have confirmed to be correct. The decisions of these two cases may be seen as some of the most unexpected decisions in vicarious liability to date. This piece assesses if those decisions are the correct ones and what this will mean for future decisions. This topic was chosen due to the recent developments in vicarious liability law, created by cases heard in recent years. Critics such as Neyers have questioned the justifications for the imposition of vicarious liability and its mere existence could be argued to be both fair and unfair. It is therefore proposed that it is important that we review its justification, especially during times of change such as these.