Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd. v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd & Ors

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd. v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd & Ors

Dual vicarious liability is possible in English law where both the general and temporary employer have a sufficient right of control over the employee’s relevant negligent act. On the facts, both the second and third defendants were entitled and obliged to control Darren Strang’s work, so both are vicariously liable for his negligence. Contribution between them should be equal.

Parties
Claimant: Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd; First Defendant: Thermal Transfer (Northern) Limited; Second Defendant: S & P Darwell Limited; Third Defendant: T Hall & C Day t/a CAT Metalwork Services
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Borrowed Servant Doctrine, Contribution Between Tortfeasors
Tort Law Employment Law Vicarious Liability Borrowed Servant Doctrine Contribution Between Tortfeasors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd

Claimant

Thermal Transfer (Northern) Limited

First Defendant

S & P Darwell Limited

Second Defendant

T Hall & C Day t/a CAT Metalwork Services

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dual vicarious liability is possible in English law for the negligence of a single employee lent by one employer to another
  2. 2 Which employer(s) are vicariously liable for the negligent act of Darren Strang, the fitter's mate

Ratio Decidendi

Dual vicarious liability is possible in English law where both the general and temporary employer have a sufficient right of control over the employee’s relevant negligent act. On the facts, both the second and third defendants were entitled and obliged to control Darren Strang’s work, so both are vicariously liable for his negligence. Contribution between them should be equal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Both the second and third defendants are vicariously liable to the claimants for Darren Strang’s negligence.
  • As between the second and third defendants, there should be equal contribution (50% each) for their several liability to the claimants.