## Facts

- Mr. Hawley was assaulted by a bouncer while visiting a nightclub operated by Luminar.
- The bouncer involved in the assault was formally employed by a third-party security firm contracted by Luminar to provide security services.
- Despite the bouncers' formal employment status, Luminar exercised substantial control over their conduct, including setting standards of behaviour, operational protocols, and possessing authority to remove bouncers from duties.
- The core legal question was whether Luminar, as the nightclub operator, could be held vicariously liable for the actions of a bouncer supplied by an independent contractor.

## Issues

1. Whether Luminar exercised sufficient control over the bouncer to render the bouncer effectively its employee for the purpose of vicarious liability.
2. Whether the application of the control test required the court to look beyond the formal contractual relationship to the practical realities of the working arrangement.
3. Whether Luminar could be held responsible for the tortious acts of a contractor’s staff on its premises.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found that Luminar had a significant degree of control over the bouncers’ work, including directing conduct and operational procedures, despite the existence of a third-party contract.
- Applying the control test, the court determined that, for the purposes of vicarious liability, the bouncers should be considered employees of Luminar.
- As a result, Luminar was held vicariously liable for the bouncer’s assault on Mr. Hawley.

## Legal Principles

- The control test examines the extent to which an employer directs the manner in which work is performed, instructs behaviour, and provides operational protocols.
- The nature of the actual working relationship and the degree of incorporation into the employer's business are more important than the technical legal status under a contract.
- Employers may be held vicariously liable for individuals supplied by contractors where sufficient control is exercised.
- Comparative reference within the provided summary distinguishes this approach from other cases, noting that mere independent contractor status does not preclude vicarious liability where control is present.

## Conclusion

The decision in Hawley v Luminar clarifies that employers can be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of third-party contractors where they exercise direct control over the individuals’ conduct and operational standards, requiring employers to carefully manage and document relationships with contracted staff to mitigate liability risks.


Hawley v Luminar Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 18