Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc [2020] UKSC 13

Facts

• The claimants were former employees of Barclays Bank who alleged they had been sexually assaulted by a doctor during medical examinations arranged by the bank.
• The doctor operated as an independent contractor, conducting medical assessments for Barclays Bank but running his own medical practice and retaining freedom to accept or reject referrals.
• Barclays Bank arranged and benefitted from the medical examinations but contended it had no control over how the doctor conducted them, arguing the doctor was not an employee.

Issues

1. Whether Barclays Bank plc could be held vicariously liable for the alleged sexual assaults committed by the independent medical examiner.
2. Whether the relationship between Barclays Bank and the doctor was sufficiently "akin to employment" to impose vicarious liability.
3. What legal tests determine when an employer may be vicariously liable for torts committed by independent contractors.

Decision

• The Supreme Court concluded that the doctor was an independent contractor and not in a relationship "akin to employment" with Barclays Bank.
• It found the bank exercised no relevant control over the doctor or his practice and that he could freely accept or decline work from the bank.
• The Court held that vicarious liability does not extend to true independent contractor relationships.
• The claims against Barclays Bank were dismissed.

Legal Principles

• Vicarious liability imposes liability on employers for wrongful acts of employees in the course of employment, with a public policy aim of ensuring victim compensation and encouraging high standards.
• The "akin to employment" test requires examination of the degree of control, the involvement of the employer, and the nature of the work.
• The judgment affirms the need for a close relationship of employment-like characteristics for vicarious liability to apply.
• True independent contractors generally fall outside the scope of vicarious liability.
• The decision clarifies and limits the expansion of vicarious liability in line with prior authorities such as Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10 and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified that Barclays Bank could not be held vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of a truly independent contractor, emphasizing that only relationships exhibiting sufficient elements of employment can attract such liability.