## Facts

- The defendant owned a nightclub and employed an unlicensed doorman, referred to as C, to manage entry and maintain order.
- C refused entry to one of the claimant’s friends and responded with violence, triggering retaliation from customers who struck C and hit him with a bottle.
- C left the nightclub, went to his nearby flat, and later returned as the claimant and his group prepared to leave.
- Upon return, C attacked and stabbed the claimant in the back.
- C was convicted criminally for causing grievous bodily harm.
- The claimant pursued a civil case against the defendant, alleging vicarious liability for C's actions.
- The initial judge ruled in favour of the defendant, finding the nightclub altercation and the subsequent stabbing to be unconnected events.

## Issues

1. Whether there was a sufficiently close connection between C’s employment and his violent attack on the claimant to establish vicarious liability.
2. Whether the defendant owed a personal duty of care to the claimant in his selection and management of employees, particularly given the expectations placed on C.
3. Whether the stabbing constituted a personal act of revenge, thereby breaking the connection to employment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal overturned the initial judgment and found the defendant vicariously liable for C’s actions.
- The court applied the close connection test from Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215 and Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913, finding C’s violent act to be a foreseeable consequence of the nightclub incident.
- The court determined that the defendant's employment and encouragement of C's aggressive behaviour contributed to the liability.
- The defendant was also held personally liable for failing to properly control and supervise C, particularly given the knowledge and approval of his aggressive methods.
- The court rejected the argument that the stabbing was a personal act of revenge that severed the connection with C's employment.

## Legal Principles

- Vicarious liability requires a sufficiently close connection between the wrongful act and the duties the employee was expected or authorised to perform.
- The close connection test considers whether the tort was so closely linked to the employment that it is fair to hold the employer liable.
- An employer may be personally liable for failure to manage and supervise employees, especially when violence is an expected part of their assigned roles.
- If violence is part of the employee’s expected conduct, acts of aggression may fall within the scope of employment for vicarious liability purposes.
- The approach to vicarious liability has shifted post-Mattis, focusing on whether the employee’s actions furthered the employer’s business, as clarified in Wm Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12.

## Conclusion

Mattis v Pollock established that employers can be vicariously and personally liable for violent acts closely connected to duties assigned to employees, particularly when aggressive conduct is encouraged. The decision integrated the close connection test and indicated a broader scope for liability at the time, though subsequent case law has refocused the test on business objectives rather than employee expectations.


Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158