Report comment

Anon @ 12.32 - I'd agree.

It's a bit frustrating for a Gazette article to have a title referring to the decision as surprising, apparently on the basis that it's holding them liable for criminal conduct of an employee, when that's really not surprising. The judgment makes it clear this was not breaking new ground.

However, the judgment also makes clear that the slightly interesting issue on vicarious liability is the argument that Skelton's motive and actions were very deliberately designed to harm Morrisons. So, by holding Morrisons liable, is the court complicit in furthering Skelton's illegitimate and entirely criminal aims?

The CofA said no, referring to the Supreme Court in Mohamud where it says that motive of the employee is irrelevant. For what it's worth, I doubt the Supreme Court would take a different view than they did in Mohamud, but at least there is a possible distinction to be made.

So given the title, it's particularly frustrating that the only novel legal issue of the argument against vicarious liability isn't then referred to in the article.