This site uses cookies.

Court of Appeal Holds That Defendants May Owe a Duty to Safeguard Their Employees’ Reputations When Conducting Litigation - Andrew Warnock QC, 1 Chancery Lane

23/03/17. In a remarkable decision with far reaching implications, the Court of Appeal held that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner had arguably owed and breached a duty of care to police officers when he settled a claim a brought against him, vicariously, for an assault allegedly perpetrated by those officers (see James-Bowen v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 1217). The Court considered that a party’s hitherto assumed right to conduct litigation in his own interests was potentially qualified by the implied term of trust and confidence owed by an employer to his employee. The court considered that the interests of employee and employer were not in conflict as they both had an interest in the defence being conducted as effectively as possible.

Comment

This decision is likely to result in more cases running to trial, although even then the judgment suggests that if the trial is arguably lost due to deficiencies in the employer’s conduct of the defence, a claim may lie. The judgment does not explain how the principle would apply to cases where the employer brings contribution proceedings against the employee who is alleged to be the tortfeasor and it may be that another effect of the judgment is that such proceedings will be more likely to be brought in future. The case has significant implications for all defendants alleged to be vicariously liable for the wrongdoings of employees.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/onfilm

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.