0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

sexual assault in the workplace: opportunity alone is not sufficient connection for vicarious liability

14 October 2019

Browne Jacobson LLP were recently instructed by the defendant in a sexual assault claim in which the High Court had to carefully consider the sufficient connection test for vicarious liability to apply.

The claim concerned an educational establishment. The claimant was employed by the defendant as a cleaner. Her role involved working at a college outside of school hours. The court heard that she was one of a number of cleaners employed in the same role and that each had their own allocated area of the college to clean. Cleaners were not expected to work together in the same areas and each had a different set of keys and access cards although any member of the public, if they were inclined, could enter the public areas of the college such as the corridors.

The claimant was sexually assaulted by a co-worker in a locked room for which only she held a key. The defendant provided the claimant with support following this event and was remorseful that such a distressing incident had occurred to the claimant in the workplace. Her assailant was ultimately convicted of the assault on the claimant and others.

The claimant alleged that the defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of her assailant. The defendant deemed that there was not a sufficient connection between the assault on the claimant and the employment by the defendant of her attacker for there to be vicarious liability.

The claimant’s assailant was employed in the same role as the claimant. There was no suggestion of his being more senior than the claimant and using that power to assault her.

The assault took place in an area of the building which was assigned to the claimant. There was no reason for the assailant to be in that area and by being there, in a room he did not hold a key for, he was not acting in accordance with the role he was employed to undertake. The court heard evidence that had a supervisor come across two cleaners in the same area, they would be directed back to their respective areas.

It was argued on behalf of the defendant that this case was distinguishable from the cases of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets and Bellman v Northampton Recruitment, cases in which the limits of vicarious liability have been tested in recent years. In both those cases the thread of connection between the role of the claimants’ assailants and the assaults complained of could be made out.

In this case however the claimant could point only to the opportunity to assault the claimant by way of evidence of a sufficient connection; HHJ Walden Smith found that this was not a sufficient connection to establish vicarious liability.

HHJ Walden Smith commented that whilst the employment gave the claimants assailant the opportunity to carry out a tortious act, even pulling the thread of connection as taught as possible and viewing the field of his employment activities widely, it could not be said that there was a sufficient connection between that and the assault In the Mohamud and Bellman cases the wrongful acts were carried out in the connection of employment. That was not the case here.

Whilst the court, like the defendant had enormous sympathy with the claimant as a victim of a crime, HHJ Walden Smith concluded that this was not the basis for a finding of liability against the defendant.


training and events

31Mar

Cancelled - Planning club Birmingham office

Our regular planning club will be covering planning enforcement POCA and enforcement notices, town and village greens after the Lancashire case, and a planning case law update.

View event

focus on...

Public and Admin Law

In our administrative and public law webinar, a number of key members of the team will be providing an analysis of issues that matter to you.

View

Legal updates

Job Retention Scheme further information – 27 March 2020

Following on from our initial briefing note on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme published on 24 March 2020, the Government has now released further details about the Scheme and how it will operate.

View

Legal updates

Companies to receive a 3 month extension period to file accounts during COVID-19

As part of the Government’s package to support businesses to manage the impact of COVID-19, it has announced that companies will from today (25 March 2020) be given an additional 3 month period to file their accounts at Companies House.

View

Legal updates

Impact of Coronavirus for retail tenants – some basic questions and answers

Following the Prime Minister’s announcement on 23 March that all shops selling non-essential goods must close, we have been forced to close our premises. Will we be breaking the terms of our lease?

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up