The latest Blog title sounds like the name of a quaint English or Scottish public house, but as you might expect it relates to matters legal.
This last week, I have just begun to teach my First Year university students about the law of delict (or tort in other common law jurisdictions) and, as always, I’m looking for relevant cases or stories in the news to illustrate this area.
Obligingly enough, a report of a case came through on Friday 17 January 2020 about a plumber called Darren Conquer who has just been awarded £540,000 in damages by the Outer House of the Court of Session as a result of being the victim of medical negligence (see Darren Conquer v Lothian Health Board  CSOH 8).
As I often say to students the basis of the law of delict is loss or injury wrongfully caused (or as the Romans would have said: damnum injuria datum).
Mr Conquer had injured his arm while playing football and he had, subsequently, undergone medical treatment for this. This is where it gets interesting: the injury had occurred some 16 years ago, but Conquer was not suing the person or persons who had injured him during the football match.
This is, of course, where the issue of volenti non fit injuria arises. When you engage in a physical sport, like football, you must accept the risk of possible injury – on the proviso that all of the players conduct themselves properly and within the rules of the game.
The basis of the pursuer’s claim was that the Health Board, as the employer of the doctors who treated him, was vicariously liable because the injury to the arm been misdiagnosed and, consequently, the proper medical procedures had not been followed. Put simply, the pursuer was arguing that the Health Board was culpable or at fault for his losses.
Had the correct diagnosis been made by the doctors and the correct treatment applied, the pursuer would have made either a full recovery or nearly a full recovery and would have been able to return to his job within 6 months of sustaining the injury. The real issue seems to have centred around the failure by the doctors to carry out surgery on the pursuer at a much earlier and vital stage of his treatment.
In short, the medical negligence was the primary cause (the causa causans) of the pursuer’s losses i.e. his inability to work at his chosen trade of plumber (a skilled trade where he had the potential to make a good living).
The doctors treating Conquer owed a duty of care to him and they had been negligent in the manner of both the diagnosis of the severity of the injury and the treatment which followed (or didn’t follow perhaps more accurately).
A link to the opinion of Lady Carmichael in the Outer House can be found below:
For another recent case on medical negligence, please see the Opinion of Lord Pentland in George Andrews v Greater Glasgow Health Board  CSOH 31.
In the above case, the pursuer, the partner of a woman who died as a result of medical negligence, was successful in his claim for damages.
Lord Pentland noted:
“Since I have found that (a) Dr Izzath failed to advise the deceased that she should be admitted; (b) that his failure to give her that advice was negligent; and (c) that the deceased would have accepted the advice had it been given, I need not make any separate finding as to the deceased’s mental state.”
His Lordship went on to observe that:
“I would merely reiterate that I am in no doubt that if Dr Izzath had advised the deceased that she required to be admitted to hospital, she would have accepted his advice.”
A link to Lord Pentland’s Opinion can be found below:
There is an implied duty that the employee will take reasonable care in the discharge of her duties. In other words, employees are expected to discharge their duties with skill and care. After all, this is one of the reasons that the employer has selected them.
Breach of the employee’s duty of care may be particularly relevant in situations where the employer is held liable to an innocent third party or another member of the workforce for the negligent actions of his employee. Theoretically, the employer (or more likely his insurance company) could always exercise the right to sue the employee for breach of her duty of care.
Since Morris v Ford Motor Company Ltd 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 27, the English Court of Appeal appeared to put the brakes on this practice (known as subrogation in insurance circles). The Court was of the view that it would be unfair to pursue an employee for loss or injury caused by negligent acts or omissions where there the employer had a policy of insurance in place to cover such eventualities. The UK Parliament, of course, introduced the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 to address such situations.
Insurance companies appear to have put this practice into operation in that they will not pursue the employee for breach of duty should they have to pay out to the employer under an employee liability insurance policy. There are often very practical (not to say commercially sensible) reasons for this policy approach by insurance companies:
Pursuing a claim against an employee who has breached a duty of care to the employer may not make much economic sense i.e. you might obtain a successful decree for damages against an individual, but the practicalities of obtaining this sum from a low paid employee are almost nil; and
Employers may not wish to publicise certain situations because they fear the damage done to their reputation by effectively putting the wrongful acts of their employees in the spotlight of legal action.
This has meant in practice, that these types of cases tend to be few and far between, but not unheard of. Two older decisions are of interest:
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage  1 All ER 125,  AC 555,  UKHL 6 at the insistence of the insurers, the employer sued his employee, a lorry driver, for failing to drive safely (an implied term of his employment contract) and causing a fellow employee to suffer a personal injury as a result of the negligent driving. The House of Lords permitted the insurers to bring a successful claim against the negligent employee.
Admittedly, Lister is an older decision and insurance companies have, since the Morris case, tended not to adopt this approach.
However, in Janata Bank v Ahmed  IRLR 457 Ahmed was employed as bank manager. His employer sued him for damages for overdrafts that he had negligently authorised in respect of certain customers. Unfortunately, Ahmed had failed to investigate whether these customers were in a financial position to pay back the overdrafts. They were not and the debts owed to the bank amounted to a considerable sum.
Held: by the English Court of Appeal that Ahmed was liable in damages (£34,640) to his employers for the losses caused by his negligence. It should be appreciated that the damages awarded in this case reflect 1970s/1980s values.
In a more recent decision of the English High Court: Pemberton Greenish LLPvJane Margaret Henry  EWHC 246 (QB), an insurance company failed to bring a successful claim against a consultant solicitor who had forged a client’s signature on a letter of authority in respect of a transaction for heritable property. It appeared that the solicitor had forgotten to obtain the client’s signature and panicked. The solicitor, however, was not aware that the transaction involved a fraudulent mortgage application and breach of the Money Laundering Regulations. The client was, in fact, using a fraudulent identity to obtain mortgage funding.
When the fraud was eventually uncovered, the client’s lender sued the law firm for damages. The solicitor had, of course, a duty to act of care to her employer to act with skill and care – something which now appeared she had failed to do.
The firm’s professional indemnity insurance covered this situation and the matter was concluded by payment of damages to the lender. The insurance company then attempted to bring a claim against the solicitor. However … the professional indemnity insurance policy had a clause which only permitted the insurers to pursue an employee where the claim had arisen as a result of “a dishonest, fraudulent, intentional, criminal or malicious act or omission of the employee”.
The solicitor was eventually struck off from practising by the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (in England) for dishonestly signing the letter of authority, but crucially this act had taken place after the main fraud – the fraudulent mortgage application – was well under way. It might be said that the solicitor’s action was merely incidental to the main act i.e. the fraudulent mortgage transaction.
Admittedly, the solicitor had a duty of care to ensure that the mortgage application was above aboard, but in this sense she had acted in a negligent manner and could not be said to have committed a crime. It must also be appreciated that the solicitor did not forge the client’s signature for her own personal gain – she did so to cover up her own error. In this way, she unknowingly enabled the fraudulent transaction to proceed. Her actions were, therefore, negligent rather than criminal in nature and the law firm’s insurers failed to recover compensation from her.
In many respects, the decision of the English High Court in Pemberton Greenish LLP, just confirms what we already knew: it is very rare in practice for insurance companies to pursue employees for wrongful acts, let alone secure a favourable outcome.
That said, however, the wording of insurance policies may permit insurers to pursue claims where it can be proved that the employee acts or omissions are “dishonest, fraudulent, intentional, criminal or malicious.”
I couldn’t help thinking about cases such as Lister, Janata and Pemberton Greenish LLP when reading a recent story on the BBC website.
Peebles Media Group Ltd v Patricia Reilly (A226/17) February 2019
The case involves a situation where the employer is claiming that a (now) former employee was negligent when she transferred nearly £200,000 to an online fraudster. The employee is claiming that she believed that the order to transfer the cash had been legitimately issued by her boss. The employer, on the other hand, is alleging that the ex-employee ignored warnings from the company’s bankers that fraudsters were attempting to obtain funds from unsuspecting victims by sending what appeared to be legitimate orders from bosses. By not heeding these warnings, the employer clearly believes that its former employee was negligent in the discharge of her duties. It is also alleged that the ex-employee had no authority to make payments on behalf of the company.
According to the BBC, the employer’s bank has refunded approximately £85,000, but there is still the issue of an outstanding sum of nearly £107,000 – hence the dispute.
The case is currently being heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh and it will be interesting to hear the eventual outcome of the case.
A link to the story on the BBC website can be found below:
Patricia Reilly transferred almost £200,000 after receiving emails from someone she thought was her boss.
Employees owe a common law duty of care to exercise skill and care in the discharge of their duties on their employers’ behalf.
Theoretically, employers have the legal right to sue their employees for losses caused by wrongful acts or omissions. It might be thought that insurance companies would be actively pressing employers to raise legal actions for damages against incompetent employees. This tends to happen less in practice than might otherwise be expected.
As we have seen, the Morris decision of the English Court of Appeal in the 1970s, discouraged insurers from pursuing claims against employees. There were also practical reasons why an employer might be reluctant to pursue matters: you might obtain an award of damages, but enforcing it against the errant employee wasn’t worth the bother; and public court proceedings might actually cause reputational damage.
In many situations, an employer might simply choose to sack an employee who had breached the duty of care on grounds of capability or conduct (as per Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996). That, of course, is another matter for discussion entirely …
Traditionally, vicarious liability in employment law was primarily an issue for parties who had entered a contract of service. For many years, it was the general legal position that an independent contractor i.e. someone engaged under a contract for services who had committed a wrongful act or omission which harmed a third party was personally liable for the consequences of their behaviour. The person hiring the contractor would normally escape any such liability. Vicarious liability, however, is an area of the law which continues to develop – as we are about to see.
Worryingly, for organisations which use independent contractors (people working under a contract for services), an English Court of Appeal decision may mean that they could be liable for delicts and other wrongful acts/omissions e.g. assaults which were carried out by non-employees.
The English Court of Appeal has clearly come to its decision based on the logic of recent decisions of the UK Supreme Court: namely, Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets  (which is discussed in Chapter 6 of Introductory Scots Law). It would seem likely, therefore, that the Scottish courts will follow this decision remains to be seen, but it is not a development which organisations are likely to welcome. A summary of the decision can be seen below:
Barclays Bank PLC v Various Claimants  EWCA Civ 1670
Barclays Bank hired a doctor, Gordon Bates, to carry out medical examinations of members of its staff and applicants for employment at the Bank. These examinations were carried out by Bates at his consulting room located at his private address. The doctor was accused of sexually assaulting 126 people during examinations carried out between 1968 and 1984. These incidents did not come to light until much later. By this time, the doctor had died and there was no question of his professional indemnity insurance or his estate paying out compensation to his victims. Barclays Bank stated that the doctor was not an employee – he was an independent medical practitioner paid by the Bank to carry out a service as and when required. Barclays Bank argued that on these grounds they should not be held liable for the doctor’s wrongful actions. In fact, the victims themselves did not claim that Bates was an employee of Barclays, but significantly they did argue that its relationship with the doctor was “akin to employment” and that the delictual act was sufficiently closely connected to the employment or quasi-employment. Bates was under the control of Barclays Bank; by using the services of Bates, the Bank had created the risk of the victims being exposed to his wrongful acts; The medical examinations were carried out on behalf of the Bank; and the Bank had the resources to compensate the victims who now had no practical means of obtaining damages from Bates.
The case was first heard in the English High Court. The High Court decided that Barclays should be held liable for the doctor’s actions. They were benefiting from the service that he was providing and they had the financial resources to compensate the victims (this for organisations using independent contractors will be the really controversial and worrying part of the judgement).
Barclays appealed to the English Court of Appeal, but the decision of the High Court was upheld. At paragraph 41 of the judgement, Lord Justice Irwin stated:
“The law of vicarious liability has been developed – has been “on the move” – in recent times, most notably in the five critical decisions of: E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity; the Catholic Child Welfare Society; Cox v Ministry of Justice; Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets; and Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council.”
Significantly, Lord Justice Irwin goes on to say (at paragraph 45):
“Moreover, it seems clear to me that, adopting the approach of the Supreme Court, there will indeed be cases of independent contractors where vicarious liability will be established. Changes in the structures of employment, and of contracts for the provisions of services, are widespread. Operations intrinsic to a business enterprise are routinely performed by independent contractors, over long periods, accompanied by precise obligations and high levels of control. Such patterns are evident in widely different fields of enterprise, from construction, to manufacture, to the services sector.”
What are the consequences of the Barclays judgement? The logical conclusion is that any organisation engaging workers or independent contractors under a contract for services will have to be aware of this decision and its implications because it expands the area of vicarious liability considerably. If the English Court of Appeal’s decision is upheld and then followed in Scotland, it will be true to say that vicarious liability is no longer an exclusive feature of the contract of employment (contract of service). Essentially, it will be very difficult for a an organisation to mount a competent defence that it should not incur liability merely because the wrongful act or omission was committed by an independent contractor for services.
A link to the English Court of Appeal’s decision can be found below: