Wilson v. EXEL UK Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSIH_35 (29 April 2010)

Wilson v. EXEL UK Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSIH_35 (29 April 2010)

The supervisor's act of pulling the pursuer's ponytail was unconnected with his employment duties and constituted a personal frolic. There was no close connection between the wrongful act and the employment; thus, it would not be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable. The case failed both the close connection and scope of employment tests.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_35
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Leanne Wilson; Defenders and Respondents: EXEL UK Limited, trading as 'EXEL'
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Dismissal of Action as Irrelevant After Debate; Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutor of the Sheriff affirmed.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Employer's Liability, Intentional Torts, Scope of Employment, Workplace Assault, Horseplay at Work
Tort Law Employment Law Vicarious Liability Employer's Liability Intentional Torts Scope of Employment Workplace Assault Horseplay at Work

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leanne Wilson

Pursuer and Appellant

EXEL UK Limited, trading as 'EXEL'

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Dismissal of Action as Irrelevant After Debate; Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer is vicariously liable for an assault committed by a supervisor on an employee during horseplay at work
  2. 2 Whether the act was so closely connected with the employment that it would be fair and just to impose vicarious liability

Ratio Decidendi

The supervisor's act of pulling the pursuer's ponytail was unconnected with his employment duties and constituted a personal frolic. There was no close connection between the wrongful act and the employment; thus, it would not be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable. The case failed both the close connection and scope of employment tests.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutor of the Sheriff affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal refused
  • Interlocutor of the Sheriff dated 11 December 2008 affirmed