Closely connected torts | OCR A-Level Law
For Specification H418
OCR A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 50–60 minutes
This Closely connected torts A-Level Law revision page explains when an employer may be vicariously liable for wrongdoing sufficiently connected with an employee's work. OCR H418 expressly requires liability for torts closely connected to employment. You will learn the modern close-connection approach, how to identify the employee's field of activities, why place and working hours are not conclusive, and how motive may show that an employee has gone on a personal frolic. This develops the traditional course of employment [Lesson 135. Course of employment] rules.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain the close-connection test for vicarious liability.
Identify the employee's authorised field of activities.
Explain why mere opportunity to commit a tort is insufficient.
Explain the relevance of the tortfeasor's intention and motive.
Apply the close-connection approach to intentional torts and other factual situations.
Reach supported conclusions on whether an employer is vicariously liable.
Revision Notes 📚
Closely connected torts A-Level Law revision overview
Vicarious liability can make one party, usually an employer, responsible for a tort committed by another person, usually an employee.
The contemporary approach involves two broad requirements:
there must be a suitable relationship between the defendant and tortfeasor
there must be a sufficient connection between that relationship and the tortfeasor's wrongdoing.
OCR's current materials identify Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v BXB as authority for this two-part structure.
The first requirement has already been considered through employment status [Lesson 133. Employment status] and relationships akin to employment [Lesson 134. Relationships akin to employment].
This lesson focuses on the second requirement:
Is the tort sufficiently closely connected with the work or activities entrusted to the tortfeasor?
When is the close-connection approach particularly important?
OCR distinguishes between:
the traditional Salmond test for unintentional torts
the modern close-connection test, which is particularly important when dealing with intentional torts.
For example:
An employee negligently crashes a delivery van while making deliveries.
The traditional rules from course of employment [Lesson 135. Course of employment] may resolve the issue.
Compare:
An employee deliberately assaults another person during circumstances connected with their work.
The close-connection test becomes particularly important because the wrongdoing is intentional.
⚠️ Do not automatically use Salmond negligence principles simply because the tortfeasor is an employee. OCR's 2025 examiner report specifically identified this as a weakness in answers dealing with intentional torts.
The close-connection test
OCR's current mark schemes use the modern approach associated with:
WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants
Dubai Aluminium v Salaam.
The essential question is whether the employee's wrongful conduct is so closely connected with the acts they were authorised to perform that it can fairly and properly be regarded as occurring in the ordinary course of their employment.
The test therefore connects:
Activities entrusted to TF
↓
Wrongful conduct committed by TF
↓
Is the connection sufficiently close?
The court must examine the circumstances of the particular case and can use previous decisions involving comparable situations for guidance.
This is not simply a time-and-place test
One of the biggest misconceptions is that an employer is liable whenever the tort occurs:
at the workplace
during working hours.
Neither fact is conclusive.
OCR's 2025 examiner report specifically warned that candidates applied the test too narrowly by treating the employer's premises or normal working hours as decisive.
A tort can potentially be closely connected even if it happens:
away from the normal workplace
outside normal working hours.
Equally, a tort may not be closely connected even if it occurs:
at work
during working hours.
The deeper question is:
What was the employee's role, what activities had the employer entrusted to them, and how did the tort arise from those activities?
The employee's field of activities
OCR's 2025 materials repeatedly use the phrase field of activities.
This means the range of tasks, functions or activities assigned to the employee as part of their role.
The first major application question should therefore be:
What was TF actually employed or authorised to do?
Examples might include:
serving customers
managing employees
teaching pupils
handling customer information.
Then ask:
How closely is the tort connected to those activities?
Example: customer-facing work
Suppose:
Nadia works on a customer service desk. During a dispute with a customer about the service she is providing, Nadia becomes aggressive and deliberately assaults the customer.
Her field of activities includes:
interacting with customers
dealing with customer enquiries
representing the employer in those interactions.
The assault develops directly from the customer interaction forming part of Nadia's role.
This gives a strong argument that the tort is closely connected with her employment.
Mohamud v WM Morrisons Supermarkets is an important authority for this type of situation. OCR's 2025 mark scheme applied the same principle to an employee whose assault arose from attending to a customer.
Mohamud v WM Morrisons Supermarkets
Mohamud v WM Morrisons Supermarkets is a major close-connection authority identified by OCR.
The important principle is that an intentional assault can fall within vicarious liability where it arises sufficiently closely from the employee's assigned customer-facing activities.
The examination point is not:
"Any employee who assaults a customer makes the employer liable."
Instead:
Analyse how the employee's interaction with the claimant arose from the duties the employer had entrusted to them.
If the confrontation develops directly from those assigned activities, there may be a sufficiently close connection.
Mere opportunity is not enough
Employment may create an opportunity for wrongdoing without creating a sufficiently close connection.
OCR's 2025 report stresses this distinction through Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v BXB.
Ask:
Did the employment role itself have a meaningful connection with the tort, or did it merely place TF in the same place as the claimant?
This is a crucial difference.
Lister v Hesley Hall
OCR uses Lister v Hesley Hall to illustrate the distinction.
The report explains that a person entrusted with caring for children can have a sufficiently close connection between those authorised duties and abuse committed against those children.
By contrast, another employee who merely works at the same location but has not been entrusted with the care of the children would have only the opportunity to commit the tort.
The lesson is:
Employment + opportunity ≠ automatically a close connection
There must be a meaningful relationship between:
what the employee was entrusted to do
the wrongful conduct.
Factual causation alone is insufficient
The close-connection test is not satisfied merely because:
"The tort would not have happened if TF had not been employed by D."
OCR's 2025 mark scheme expressly states that factual causation is not sufficient.
For example:
An employee meets someone only because they both happen to be at the workplace. The employee later commits a purely personal assault.
It is not enough to argue:
"They met because of the job, therefore the employer is liable."
The employment must do more than provide the factual opportunity.
You must connect the wrongdoing to the employee's authorised field of activities.
What was the employee doing in their role?
OCR's 2025 examiner guidance suggests asking questions such as:
What was the tortfeasor's role?
What tasks fell within their field of activities?
Did the employee step outside that role when committing the tort?
Did employment merely provide the opportunity for wrongdoing?
These questions are much more useful than relying only on:
where the tort happened
what time it happened.
A practical application method
For each tortfeasor, identify:
Role
Customer service assistant.
Field of activities
Serving customers and dealing with their enquiries.
Tort
Assault on a customer after a work-related confrontation.
Connection
The confrontation grew directly out of the customer interaction the employee was authorised to carry out.
Conclusion
Strong argument that the tort is closely connected.
Authority conferred by the employer
A close connection may be strengthened where the employer has given the tortfeasor authority over the claimant.
OCR's 2022 mark scheme identified this as particularly significant in cases involving teaching and responsibility for children.
For example:
A school gives an instructor authority to teach and supervise pupils. The instructor commits an intentional tort against a pupil while purporting to exercise that authority.
The facts may support close connection because:
the employer placed the instructor in the position of authority
the tort arises from the role entrusted to them
the employment relationship creates more than merely an opportunity to encounter the claimant.
This principle is supported by Lister v Hesley Hall and the other close-connection authorities recognised in OCR materials.
Furthering the employer's business or asserting employment authority
OCR's 2022 mark scheme explains that intentional wrongdoing may be closely connected where the employee's actions, even though seriously wrongful, are intended to:
further the employer's business, or
assert authority arising from the employment role.
This does not mean that the employer must have authorised the tort itself.
Intentional torts are, by definition, likely to involve conduct an employer would never expressly permit.
Instead ask:
Was the employee still acting through the role or authority given by the employer?
If so, the close connection may remain.
Work-related disputes
A deliberate assault can sometimes remain closely connected even when it occurs outside the normal workplace or after ordinary working hours.
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment is a key OCR authority.
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment
The important point is that the court considers whether the employee is still acting through the authority or field of activities connected with their role.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme applied Bellman to a manager whose assault arose from a discussion about employees' pay and where the manager was acting in his managerial capacity.
This illustrates why:
Outside working hours
does not automatically mean:
Outside vicarious liability.
Example
After a company event, a manager and employee continue discussing pay. The manager asserts their authority over the employee during the argument and deliberately assaults them.
Relevant facts include:
the dispute concerns work
the tortfeasor is speaking or acting as a manager
managerial authority forms part of their field of activities.
The argument for close connection is therefore stronger than if the dispute were purely private and unrelated to employment.
Motive and intention
The employee's motive can be highly important when deciding whether they have stepped outside their employment and gone on a personal frolic.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme identifies intention and motive as key elements when applying WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants and Bellman v Northampton Recruitment.
The main distinction is:
Wrongdoing connected with carrying out or asserting the employee's role
versus
Wrongdoing motivated by a purely personal purpose or vendetta.
Personal vendetta
Where the tortfeasor is pursuing a personal vendetta, the employer may not be vicariously liable.
The key OCR authority is:
WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme applied this principle to an employee who deliberately misused confidential information because she wanted personal revenge. The conduct was outside the field of activities assigned to her and amounted to a personal frolic.
Example
Theo's job gives him authorised access to customer information. He becomes angry with his employer and deliberately publishes the information online purely to damage the business.
The job gave Theo:
access to the information
an opportunity to misuse it.
But his motive is:
personal revenge
harm to the employer.
That strongly suggests the tort is not sufficiently closely connected with his employment.
The fact that employment made the wrongdoing possible is not enough.
Opportunity versus purpose
This produces one of the most important distinctions in the topic:
Facts | Likely implication |
Employment gives TF access or opportunity, but tort is entirely personal | Weaker close connection |
Tort grows directly out of activities entrusted to TF | Stronger close connection |
TF acts through authority conferred by employer | Stronger close connection |
TF is motivated by personal revenge unrelated to furthering the employer's role | Weaker close connection |
TF is still asserting their employment authority | Stronger close connection |
Frolic of one's own under the modern approach
The idea of a frolic of one's own remains relevant under the modern close-connection approach.
OCR's current mark schemes continue to emphasise it.
An employee is more likely to be on a personal frolic where their wrongdoing is driven by:
personal vengeance
private interests
motives disconnected from the role entrusted to them.
This is not a separate defence.
Instead, it means that the claimant has failed to establish the required connection between employment and wrongdoing.
Compare with Lesson 135
Under course of employment [Lesson 135. Course of employment], a frolic might involve an employee physically abandoning their work for a personal errand.
Under the close-connection approach, the employee's motive can also demonstrate a personal frolic even where the employment has given them access to the means or opportunity to commit the tort.
Three core OCR application patterns
OCR's 2025 examination provides a particularly useful set of contrasts. The underlying principles can be generalised without memorising the exact scenarios.
Pattern 1: customer-facing assault
Role: dealing with customers.
Wrongdoing: assault arising directly from dealing with a customer.
Authority: Mohamud v WM Morrisons Supermarkets.
Likely result: close connection.
Pattern 2: manager and work-related dispute
Role: managerial authority over employees.
Wrongdoing: assault resulting from a dispute about employment matters while the manager is acting in that managerial capacity.
Authority: Bellman v Northampton Recruitment.
Likely result: close connection.
Pattern 3: personal revenge
Role: legitimate access to information.
Wrongdoing: deliberate misuse of the information motivated entirely by revenge.
Authority: WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants.
Likely result: no close connection.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme used these distinctions directly when assessing vicarious liability for three different intentional torts.
Compare Mohamud and Morrisons
These cases are particularly useful together.
Mohamud
The employee's wrongdoing arises from the employee's assigned role and interaction with a customer.
Result: stronger close connection.
WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants
Employment provides the opportunity and access needed for the wrongdoing, but the employee acts because of a personal vendetta.
Result: insufficient close connection.
Exam question to ask
Is TF acting through their employment role, or merely using an opportunity created by employment for their own purposes?
That distinction can unlock many difficult intentional-tort scenarios.
Compare Bellman and a private dispute
Suppose two managers attend the same social event.
Situation A
One manager assaults another after an argument about:
football
a private debt
a family disagreement.
These facts point towards a purely personal dispute.
Situation B
A manager assaults an employee during an argument about:
employees' pay
workplace authority
management decisions
while asserting managerial authority.
These facts point more strongly towards Bellman v Northampton Recruitment and a close connection.
The social setting or time of night should not be treated as automatically decisive.
Enterprise risk and policy
OCR's 2025 mark scheme states that consideration of enterprise liability or risk may assist in applying the close-connection principle.
This links back to the purpose of vicarious liability [Lesson 132. Nature and purpose of vicarious liability].
The employer may have:
entrusted TF with particular activities
created a risk through those activities
placed TF in a position of authority over others.
These considerations may help explain why the law regards certain intentional torts as sufficiently connected with employment.
However, they do not mean that an employer is automatically liable whenever employment creates any risk or opportunity.
BXB confirms that mere factual opportunity is insufficient.
The role of previous cases
OCR's current mark scheme states that the close-connection principle should be applied with regard to:
the circumstances of the particular case
assistance from previous relevant decisions.
Case comparison is therefore particularly useful.
Instead of simply writing:
"The tort is closely connected."
write:
"The situation resembles Mohamud because the confrontation arose directly from the employee's assigned customer-facing role."
or:
"The employee's revenge motive resembles WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants, suggesting that employment merely provided the opportunity for the tort."
That is much stronger AO2.
A close-connection checklist
When employment status has already been established, use this sequence.
Step 1: Identify the tort
Is the wrongdoing:
assault
misuse of information
another intentional tort?
Step 2: Identify TF's role
What was TF employed or authorised to do?
Step 3: Define the field of activities
What tasks or responsibilities had D entrusted to TF?
Step 4: Link the tort to those activities
Did the wrongful conduct arise directly from those activities?
Step 5: Ask whether employment created only an opportunity
Would the argument amount merely to:
"TF could commit the tort because they happened to work there"?
If so, that is insufficient.
Step 6: Consider authority
Did D place TF in a position of:
authority
trust
responsibility over the claimant?
Step 7: Consider motive
Was TF:
furthering D's activities
asserting employment authority
or:
pursuing a personal vendetta
acting for purely private reasons?
Step 8: Compare relevant authority
Does the scenario resemble:
Lister
Mohamud
Bellman
Morrisons
BXB?
Step 9: Reach a supported conclusion
Explain why the connection is or is not sufficiently close.
Worked application 1: customer assault
Anika works at the customer service desk of TechHub Ltd. A customer complains about a refund. While dealing with the complaint as part of her job, Anika becomes angry, follows the customer from the desk and assaults him.
Assume Anika's employee status and the tort of assault are established.
Field of activities
Anika's role includes:
dealing with customers
responding to complaints
representing TechHub in customer interactions.
Connection
The confrontation develops directly from a customer interaction she was authorised to handle.
Her employment has done more than merely place her near the claimant.
Authority
Mohamud v WM Morrisons Supermarkets provides a useful comparison.
Conclusion
There is a strong argument that Anika's assault is closely connected with the field of activities entrusted to her.
TechHub is therefore likely to be vicariously liable.
Worked application 2: personal revenge
Yusuf works in the IT department of MarketPlus Ltd and has authorised access to customer information. He becomes angry after receiving a disciplinary warning. To punish MarketPlus, he deliberately publishes confidential customer information online.
Field of activities
Yusuf's employment gives him access to customer information.
Mere opportunity
However, access alone does not establish close connection.
The job may simply have provided the opportunity to commit the tort.
Motive
Yusuf acts specifically to harm his employer in revenge for the disciplinary warning.
His motive is therefore personal vengeance rather than carrying out or furthering MarketPlus's activities.
Authority
The facts strongly resemble the principle in WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants.
Conclusion
Yusuf is likely to be acting on a personal frolic.
The wrongdoing is unlikely to be sufficiently closely connected with his employment, so MarketPlus is unlikely to be vicariously liable.
Worked application 3: managerial authority
After a company dinner, manager Priya and employee Anton continue discussing Anton's rate of pay at a nearby hotel. Priya insists that she has authority to decide how staff are treated. The argument becomes heated and Priya assaults Anton.
Time and place
The incident occurs:
after the formal company event
away from the normal workplace.
Those facts are relevant, but they are not conclusive.
Field of activities
Priya's role includes managerial authority over employees.
Nature of dispute
The disagreement concerns:
pay
employment
Priya's managerial authority.
Authority
The situation resembles Bellman v Northampton Recruitment.
Conclusion
There is a strong argument that Priya is still acting through the managerial authority entrusted to her.
The assault may therefore be sufficiently closely connected with employment despite occurring away from the workplace and outside ordinary hours.
Worked application 4: mere opportunity
A maintenance employee works at a residential institution. While carrying out ordinary maintenance work, they encounter residents. The employee later commits an intentional tort against one resident for entirely private reasons unrelated to their maintenance duties.
Employment connection
The employee works at the same place as the claimant.
Field of activities
Their role involves maintenance, not:
care
supervision
authority over residents.
Opportunity
Employment has therefore given them access to the location and an opportunity to encounter the claimant.
Under the distinction illustrated by Lister v Hesley Hall and reinforced in BXB, this may be no more than mere opportunity.
Conclusion
Without a stronger link between the maintenance role and the intentional tort, the close-connection requirement is unlikely to be satisfied.
Keep employment status separate
A complete vicarious liability problem may require both:
the relationship requirement
the close-connection requirement.
But sometimes OCR will expressly establish employment status for you.
For example, the 2025 question stated that all three tortfeasors worked under contracts of service and specifically told candidates not to discuss employment status.
In that situation:
Do not spend time applying the control, integration or akin-to-employment tests.
Move directly to:
Is the tort closely connected with the employee's authorised field of activities?
Supported conclusions
The close-connection test often requires judgement.
A good conclusion should contain:
Principle + decisive facts + outcome
For example:
Although the assault happened away from the employer's premises, the dispute concerned staff pay and TF was asserting the managerial authority entrusted to them. The facts resemble Bellman, so the tort is likely to be sufficiently closely connected with employment.
Or:
Although TF gained access to the information through employment, the disclosure was motivated solely by revenge against the employer. Employment therefore provided the opportunity rather than the purpose of the wrongdoing, making Morrisons persuasive. D is unlikely to be vicariously liable.
Avoid unsupported statements such as:
"It happened after work, so the employer is not liable."
The next lesson, evaluating vicarious liability [Lesson 137. Evaluating vicarious liability], considers whether imposing liability through these rules is fair and whether the doctrine achieves the aims of tort law.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Close connection | A sufficiently strong link between the activities entrusted to the tortfeasor and the tort committed. | Use the modern test to decide whether D should be vicariously liable. |
Field of activities | The tasks, functions and responsibilities entrusted to the tortfeasor as part of their role. | Identify TF's role before linking the wrongdoing to the employment. |
Mere opportunity | A situation where employment only places TF in a position to commit the tort without creating the necessary legal connection. | Use BXB and Lister to explain why opportunity alone is insufficient. |
Motive | The reason why the tortfeasor committed the wrongful act. | Distinguish work-related conduct from a personal vendetta or frolic. |
Personal frolic | Wrongdoing pursued for TF's own private purposes rather than through or in furtherance of the employment role. | Apply WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants when revenge or private motives dominate. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Use the close-connection test for intentional torts rather than falling back on the Salmond rules for unintentional negligence. OCR's 2025 report identified misuse of Salmond principles as a major reason for weaker responses.
Examiner hint: Identify the employee's field of activities. The strongest 2025 answers understood that the crucial question was whether the tort fell within the activities associated with the employee's role.
Examiner hint: Do not treat the workplace as decisive. OCR specifically criticised answers which rejected liability merely because the tort occurred away from the employer's premises.
Examiner hint: Do not treat working hours as decisive either. A tort can potentially remain closely connected outside ordinary hours where the employee continues to act through their work-related authority.
Examiner hint: Mere opportunity is not enough. Being employed by D at the same place and time as C does not establish close connection if the employee's role has no meaningful relationship with the wrongdoing.
Examiner hint: Pay close attention to intention and motive. OCR's 2025 report notes that these can be crucial when deciding whether TF remains within the employment connection or has gone on a personal frolic.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Using the Salmond test for every intentional tort
Why this is incorrect: OCR distinguishes the traditional Salmond approach to unintentional torts from the modern close-connection approach needed for intentional wrongdoing.
How to improve: When the facts involve an intentional tort, identify the employee's field of activities and apply the modern close-connection authorities.
Mistake: Assuming a tort at work is automatically closely connected
Why this is incorrect: Being at work may provide only the opportunity for the wrongdoing.
How to improve: Ask what TF was employed to do and whether that role has a meaningful connection with the tort.
Mistake: Assuming a tort away from work cannot be closely connected
Why this is incorrect: Place is relevant but not conclusive.
How to improve: Consider whether TF continued to act through work-related authority. Bellman v Northampton Recruitment illustrates why location alone does not decide liability.
Mistake: Ignoring motive
Why this is incorrect: A personal vendetta may show that TF has stepped outside the employment relationship even where the job gave them the opportunity to commit the wrongdoing.
How to improve: Ask whether TF was furthering or asserting their work role, or pursuing purely personal revenge.
Mistake: Treating access as enough
Why this is incorrect: An employee may gain access to information, property or people because of their job without the resulting tort being closely connected.
How to improve: Use BXB and WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants to distinguish access or opportunity from the required legal connection.
Mistake: Proving employment status when it is already given
Why this is incorrect: It wastes valuable examination time and does not address the disputed issue.
How to improve: Read the rubric carefully. If employee status is established, begin immediately with the close-connection requirement.
Mistake: Giving a conclusion without case comparison
Why this is incorrect: The close-connection test depends heavily on the circumstances and assistance provided by earlier decisions.
How to improve: Compare the scenario with the most similar authority, such as Mohamud, Bellman, Lister or Morrisons, and explain why the comparison supports your conclusion.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
What is meant by a tort being closely connected to employment? [2 marks]
Question 2
Explain what is meant by an employee's field of activities when applying the close-connection test. [4 marks]
Question 3
Explain why mere opportunity to commit a tort is insufficient to establish the close-connection requirement. Refer to relevant authority. [6 marks]
Question 4
Explain why the tortfeasor's motive may be important when determining whether an intentional tort is closely connected with employment. [6 marks]
Question 5
A customer-service employee becomes involved in a disagreement while dealing with a customer. The employee deliberately assaults the customer during the continuing confrontation.
Assume employee status and the tort of assault are established.
Explain whether the assault is likely to be closely connected with the employment. [8 marks]
Question 6
A manager attends an evening company event. Afterwards, the manager and an employee continue discussing the employee's pay at a nearby hotel. The manager asserts their managerial authority during the disagreement and then deliberately assaults the employee.
Assume employee status and assault are established.
Advise whether the employer is likely to be vicariously liable. [10 marks]
Question 7
Sonia works in the IT department of NetWorld Ltd and has authorised access to confidential customer information. After becoming angry with NetWorld over a personal disciplinary dispute, Sonia deliberately publishes the information to damage the company.
Assume employee status and the relevant tort are established.
Advise whether Sonia's wrongdoing is sufficiently closely connected with her employment. [10 marks]
Question 8
Metro Electronics employs Amir, Bella and Chloe. Their employment status is established.
Amir works on the customer-service desk. While responding to a customer's complaint about a faulty product, he becomes angry. The dispute continues outside the shop and Amir deliberately assaults the customer.
Bella is a senior manager. After an evening staff event, Bella and another employee discuss planned changes to staff pay. Bella says that she is responsible for the team and expects her decisions to be obeyed. The argument escalates and Bella assaults the employee.
Chloe works with confidential customer records. She becomes angry after being refused a promotion and deliberately sends customer information to a public website because she wants to embarrass Metro Electronics.
Advise Metro Electronics whether it is likely to be vicariously liable for the torts committed by Amir, Bella and Chloe. Do not discuss employment status, defences or remedies. [20 marks]
Indicative answers and mark scheme
Question 1
Award up to 2 marks for explaining that:
there must be a sufficiently close connection
between the activities entrusted to the employee and the wrongful conduct
so that the conduct can fairly and properly be regarded as occurring within the employee's employment.
Question 2
Award up to 4 marks for explaining that:
the field of activities consists of the tasks, responsibilities or functions assigned to TF
the court identifies what TF was authorised or expected to do
the tort is then compared with those activities
a stronger link between the assigned role and wrongdoing supports vicarious liability.
Question 3
Award up to 6 marks for explaining that:
factual opportunity created by employment is not sufficient by itself
the employment must have a meaningful connection with the wrongdoing
simply being in the same place or having access to C because of employment is insufficient
Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v BXB supports the rule that factual causation or opportunity alone does not establish close connection
Lister v Hesley Hall illustrates the difference between a role involving entrusted responsibility and employment which merely provides access
the focus should therefore be the relationship between the field of activities and the tort.
Question 4
Award up to 6 marks for explaining that:
motive helps show whether TF remains connected with their employment role
conduct intended to further the employer's work or assert work-related authority may support close connection
conduct motivated by a purely personal vendetta may indicate a personal frolic
WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants is relevant to personal revenge
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment is relevant where work-related managerial authority remains significant
motive must be considered alongside the full circumstances rather than in isolation.
Question 5
A strong answer should explain that:
the employee's field of activities includes dealing with customers and complaints
the confrontation arose directly while performing those assigned duties
the assault is therefore connected with the customer-facing role rather than merely happening because TF happened to work at the premises
Mohamud v WM Morrisons Supermarkets provides a relevant comparison
the continuing confrontation strengthens the connection between the authorised activities and the wrongful act.
Conclusion: The assault is likely to be sufficiently closely connected with employment, so the employer may be vicariously liable.
Question 6
A strong answer should explain:
Field of activities
The tortfeasor is a manager. Their employment involves managerial responsibility and authority over employees.
Time and place
The assault happens after an evening company event and away from the normal workplace.
These facts are relevant but are not conclusive.
Nature of the dispute
The argument concerns the employee's pay, which is directly work-related.
The manager also asserts their managerial authority during the dispute.
Authority
The facts strongly resemble Bellman v Northampton Recruitment, where the employee's managerial role remained significant despite the wider social circumstances.
Conclusion
The assault is likely to be sufficiently closely connected with the manager's field of activities.
The employer therefore has a strong likelihood of being vicariously liable.
Question 7
A strong answer should explain:
Field of activities
Sonia's role legitimately gives her access to confidential customer information.
Opportunity
That access gives her the opportunity to misuse the information, but opportunity alone is insufficient.
Motive
Sonia deliberately publishes the information because she wants revenge against NetWorld following a disciplinary dispute.
Her purpose is not:
carrying out her IT role
furthering NetWorld's activities
asserting authority arising from her job.
Instead, she is deliberately acting against the employer's interests.
Authority
The facts resemble WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants, where a personal vendetta was crucial to finding insufficient connection.
Conclusion
Sonia is likely to be on a personal frolic.
The tort is therefore unlikely to be sufficiently closely connected with her employment, and NetWorld is unlikely to be vicariously liable.
Question 8
A high-level response should apply the close-connection test separately to all three tortfeasors.
General test
There are two broad requirements for vicarious liability. The first, employment status, is already established by the question.
The issue is therefore whether there is a sufficient connection between the employment relationship and each employee's wrongdoing.
Under WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants, drawing on Dubai Aluminium v Salaam, the court asks whether the wrongful conduct is sufficiently closely connected with acts the employee was authorised to perform that it can fairly and properly be regarded as occurring in the ordinary course of employment.
The employee's field of activities, motive and the circumstances of the tort should be considered.
Amir
Amir's field of activities includes:
dealing with customers
responding to complaints
representing Metro Electronics during those interactions.
The confrontation begins when Amir is carrying out precisely those assigned activities.
Although the eventual assault takes place outside the shop, location is not conclusive.
The dispute remains connected with the customer interaction arising from Amir's employment.
The facts resemble Mohamud v WM Morrisons Supermarkets.
There is therefore a strong argument that the assault is sufficiently closely connected with Amir's employment.
Conclusion: Metro Electronics is likely to be vicariously liable for Amir's assault.
Bella
Bella's field of activities includes managerial responsibility and authority over employees.
Although the assault occurs after an evening staff event, the disagreement concerns:
changes to staff pay
Bella's managerial decisions
her authority over the team.
Bella expressly invokes that managerial authority during the dispute.
The facts therefore resemble Bellman v Northampton Recruitment.
The time and place do not automatically remove the tort from the employment connection because Bella continues to act through the authority associated with her managerial role.
Conclusion: Bella's assault is likely to be sufficiently closely connected with her employment, so Metro Electronics is likely to be vicariously liable.
Chloe
Chloe's employment gives her legitimate access to confidential customer records.
However, access alone only establishes that employment gave her the opportunity to commit the tort.
Her motive is expressly personal.
She wants revenge because she was refused a promotion and deliberately intends to embarrass Metro Electronics.
She is therefore acting:
for her own purposes
against the interests of the employer
outside the field of activities entrusted to her.
The facts strongly resemble WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants.
Under the reasoning reinforced by BXB, factual opportunity arising from employment is not sufficient by itself.
Conclusion: Chloe is likely to be on a personal frolic. Her wrongdoing is unlikely to be sufficiently closely connected with employment, so Metro Electronics is unlikely to be vicariously liable.
Overall conclusion
Metro Electronics is likely to be vicariously liable for Amir and Bella, because their intentional torts arise sufficiently closely from the customer-facing and managerial activities entrusted to them.
It is unlikely to be vicariously liable for Chloe, because her employment merely provides the opportunity to misuse the information and her wrongdoing is motivated by a personal vendetta.
Comments