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.
H&M is the latest retailer to confront its landlords about this ‘two tier retail market’ in an attempt to explore and negotiate more favourable terms.
View blog
Ann Summers is the latest retailer to have entered into new voluntary deals with the majority of their landlords, rather than using the CVA process.
We previously reported on the High Court decision of S Franses Ltd v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd in which it was held that a landlord’s motive could not prevent it from successfully utilising ‘ground (f)’ under s30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to oppose a lease renewal.
The FCA are encouraged to find that the implementation of the new rules has encouraged financial institutions to manage whistleblowing cases and concerns fairly, consistently and in a manner that protects the individual whistleblower.
Senior Associate
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up