Vaickuviene & Ors v J SAINSBURY PLC [2013] ScotCS CSIH_67 (11 July 2013)

Vaickuviene & Ors v J SAINSBURY PLC [2013] ScotCS CSIH_67 (11 July 2013)

There was no sufficiently close connection between the employee's duties (shelf stacking) and the acts of harassment and murder to justify imposing vicarious liability on the employer. The wrongful acts were a personal venture, not an unauthorised mode of carrying out authorised work.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_67
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Jelena Vaickuviene and Others; Defenders and Reclaimers: J Sainsbury PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal Against Refusal to Dismiss Action; Decision on Relevancy of Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed as irrelevant.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Harassment, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Scope of Employment, Employer's Liability for Employee's Intentional Wrongdoing
Employment Law Tort/delict Law Vicarious Liability Harassment Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Scope of Employment Employer's Liability for Employee's Intentional Wrongdoing

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jelena Vaickuviene and Others

Pursuers and Respondents

J Sainsbury PLC

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal Against Refusal to Dismiss Action; Decision on Relevancy of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employer is vicariously liable for an employee's harassment and murder of a co-worker under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the wrongful acts were so closely connected with the employment that it is fair and just to impose vicarious liability

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sufficiently close connection between the employee's duties (shelf stacking) and the acts of harassment and murder to justify imposing vicarious liability on the employer. The wrongful acts were a personal venture, not an unauthorised mode of carrying out authorised work.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed as irrelevant.

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion allowed.
  • Action dismissed.