Majrowski v Guy's & St Thomas's NHS Trust

Majrowski v Guy's & St Thomas's NHS Trust

An employer may be vicariously liable under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for harassment committed by an employee in the course of employment, unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes such liability. The existence of vicarious liability depends on whether, in the circumstances, it is just and reasonable to impose such liability, applying the close connection and reasonably incidental risk tests. The judge’s order striking out the claim was wrong and the matter should proceed to trial.

Parties
Appellant: William Majrowski; Respondent: Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim at Preliminary Stage
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Harassment, Breach of Statutory Duty, Employer's Liability
Employment Law Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Vicarious Liability Harassment Breach of Statutory Duty Employer's Liability

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Majrowski

Appellant

Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim at Preliminary Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employer may be vicariously liable for a breach of statutory duty imposed only on an employee under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 permits civil vicarious liability for harassment committed by an employee in the course of employment

Ratio Decidendi

An employer may be vicariously liable under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for harassment committed by an employee in the course of employment, unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes such liability. The existence of vicarious liability depends on whether, in the circumstances, it is just and reasonable to impose such liability, applying the close connection and reasonably incidental risk tests. The judge’s order striking out the claim was wrong and the matter should proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order striking out the claim and entering judgment for the respondent set aside
  • Case remitted to the Central London County Court for further case management