## Facts

- Mr. Weddall was employed as a care assistant by Barchester Healthcare Limited.
- His manager, Mr. Heath, telephoned him to request that he cover a shift at short notice.
- Mr. Weddall declined the request, which led to a heated exchange during the call.
- Later that evening, Mr. Heath went to Mr. Weddall’s home and assaulted him.
- Mr. Weddall brought a claim against Barchester Healthcare, alleging that the employer was vicariously liable for the assault by Mr. Heath.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer could be held vicariously liable for an assault committed by an employee following a work-related telephone call.
2. Whether the assault was sufficiently connected to the employee’s duties to fall within the scope of employment and satisfy the "close connection" test.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that Barchester Healthcare Limited was not vicariously liable for the assault.
- The court found the assault to be a personal act of vengeance, not undertaken in furtherance of the employer’s business.
- The initial telephone call was work-related, but the subsequent assault at Mr. Weddall’s home was not closely connected to Mr. Heath’s managerial duties.
- The assault did not meet the "close connection" test established in relevant case law for imposing vicarious liability.

## Legal Principles

- Vicarious liability holds employers responsible for employees’ wrongful acts only if those acts occur within the scope of employment.
- The "close connection" test (from Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22) requires a strong link between the employee’s duties and the wrongful act.
- Employers are not liable for purely personal acts of employees, even if there is a minimal factual connection to employment.
- The assessment distinguishes acts furthering the employer’s business from those triggered by personal motives.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that an employer is not vicariously liable for assaults committed by employees when the acts are personal in nature and lack a sufficient connection to the employment. The judgment reinforces the boundaries of employer liability for workplace-related incidents.


Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 25