Vicarious liability: the two stages of the test and what the Supreme Court has had to say in Cox and Mohamud
In this webinar, facilitated by APIL, leading personal injury barrister Rob Weir QC considered the two recent Supreme Court decisions in Cox v MoJ  UKSC 10 and Mohamud v Morrison plc  UKSC 11 which addressed the two stages which determine whether vicarious liability should apply.
The following questions covered were:
- Cox v Ministry of Justice, and why the Supreme Court found the prison service vicariously liable for prisoners at work.
- What are the features of a non-employment relationship which can render one party vicariously liable for the negligence of another?
- How was the test, set out in Cox, applied to the facts of the prisoner at work-prison service relationship?
- Are there any grey areas in the test?
- What does this mean for other cases, including other prisoner cases, voluntary workers and those who are working but not under a contract of employment?
- The facts in Mohamud.
- Application of the test in Mohamud and the principle of social justice.
- What does this mean in other cases? When is an assault not one for which the employer has to pay?
Areas of expertise
- Administrative and Public Law
- Clinical Negligence
- Commercial Litigation and Disputes
- Health & Safety
- Human Rights
- Insurance & Reinsurance
- Personal Injury
- Professional Negligence
- Regulatory & Professional Discipline
- Sports Law
- Telecommunications & IT