Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the case of Ahmed Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC (2014), a damages claim by a customer who was assaulted and injured by a sales assistant at a supermarket petrol kiosk. Morrisons had no reason to think the employee might be violent, but the claimant relied on the mere fact that there was interaction between a customer and a sales assistant to allege vicarious liability, seeking to significantly widen the scope of this principle.
The judge at first instance had rejected the claimant’s case.
The Court of Appeal, whilst recognising that each case will turn on its facts, held that the interaction was not sufficient to make the employer liable for the assault. Careful consideration needs to be given to the closeness of the connection between the tort and the employee’s duties. The fact that employment provides the opportunity for an assault in itself is not enough. Thankfully common sense has prevailed.
Break rights have proved a fertile source of litigation over the last few years. More often than not, tenants have found themselves on the wrong end of the decisions. However, a Court of Appeal decision yesterday has bucked that trend.
View blog
One of the requirements for tenants to contract out of the security of tenure regime contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is that they make a simple or statutory declaration before entering into the lease.
Landlords should reconsider summary judgment if a Part 26A restructuring plan is pending.
A landlord’s claim for summary judgment to recover rent and service charge arrears accrued since the start of the pandemic against a non-essential retailer succeeded. Like London buses, a second such case has followed hot on its heels.
Senior Associate
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up