PI Brief Update

JD Wetherspoon Plc v Burger & Risk Solutions BG Ltd [2025] EWHC 1259 (KB) - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers

11/06/25. The Claimant sustained a serious hip injury after being forcefully restrained by two door supervisors outside a JD Wetherspoon (JDW) pub in August 2018. The supervisors were employed by Risk Solutions BG Ltd., which was contracted by JDW to provide security services. The Claimant initially sued both JDW and Risk Solutions for personal injury. However, Risk Solutions failed to participate in the proceedings, and so the case proceeded against JDW alone.

At first instance, Recorder Shepperd held JDW vicariously liable for the actions of the door staff and awarded the Claimant £71,308.67.

The Law

The law in relation to vicarious liability has developed considerably in recent years, not least in response to historic sexual abuse claims. In essence, the Court’s must undertake a two-stage enquiry to determine vicarious liability: stage-one is concerned with the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor; and stage-two is concerned with the link between the commission of the tort and that relationship. Both stages must be satisfied.

Appeal

JDW appealed Recorder Shepperd’s decision, submitting that they were not vicariously liable for the acts/omissions of Risk Solutions staff.

High Court Decision

Sweeting J referred to the recent Supreme Court authorities of Barclays Bank, Cox and BXB, which cumulatively emphasise that vicarious liability does not extend to true independent contractors. These cases stress the need to start with the contract and only move to a ‘close connection’ analysis (stage-two) if stage-one is satisfied (i.e., if the relationship is akin to employment).

Turning to the facts, Sweeting J found that the contractual relationship between JDW and Risk Solutions was a standard commercial agreement for outsourced services, not a quasi-employment relationship. It was noted that Risk Solutions controlled, hired, trained and disciplined its own employees; and JDW had no authority over how the doormen performed their duties (only the ability to request replacements if standards were breached). Sweeting J found that, instead of focusing on these contractual realities, the fist-instance court had placed undue weight on peripheral factors of control (e.g., uniforms and log books).

Ultimately, Sweeting J held that JDW engaged Risk Solutions as a genuine independent contractor providing a specialist service. The relationship lacked the characteristics of employment required to impose vicarious liability. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the finding of liability against JDW was reversed.

Analysis

This case confirms that the specifics of the contractual relationship between subcontracting parties is central to the determination of whether vicarious liability exists. The courts will be slow to impose liability on a party engaging a true independent contractor.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/1259#download-options

Image ©iStockphoto.com/sorendls