Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning and Infrastructure

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport

Close

An employer may be held to be vicariously liable for an employee’s wrongful conduct where that conduct is sufficiently closely connected to the work the employee is authorised to do, provided that it is fair and just to hold the employer liable. This also applies to relationships which are akin to employment, such as clergy working in religious organisations.

In Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation was not vicariously liable for the rape of a congregation member committed by an elder at his home because there was no direct connection between this unlawful act and the work he was authorised to do.

Mr and Mrs B attended services of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and became close friends with Mr S, an elder, and his wife. Elders are a group of men with congregational responsibilities who sit above another group of men, ministerial servants, who in turn sit above the ordinary members of the congregation. When Mr S began abusing alcohol and suffering from depression, his father, another elder, asked Mr and Mrs B to provide him with extra support. Mr S was convicted of raping Mrs B in his home after the two couples had spent the day evangelising and then socialising together. Mr S was subsequently convicted of rape. Mrs B brought a personal injury claim against the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation, claiming that it was vicariously liable for the attack.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld Mrs B’s claim, ruling that vicarious liability was established because had it not been for the fact that Mr S was an elder, and that Mrs B had received instruction from another elder to support him, their friendship would have come to an end and the rape would not have occurred. However, the Supreme Court has now allowed an appeal by the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation.

The Supreme Court reviewed the relevant case law and confirmed that the legal test for vicarious liability applies to all cases, including cases of sexual abuse. There is a two stage test. Firstly, there must be an employment or quasi-employment relationship between the employer and the wrongdoer. Secondly, the wrongful conduct must be so closely connected with the wrongdoer’s authorised activities that it can be regarded as having been done whilst acting in the course of their employment or quasi-employment. In difficult cases, it is useful to consider as a final check whether the outcome is consistent with the underlying policy justification for vicarious liability.

In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the elder was in a quasi-employment relationship with the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation. Although his role was unpaid, he was carrying out work on behalf of the organisation which was integral to its aims and objectives.  However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts as regards the close connection test. The rape was committed at the elder’s home, and he was not performing any work connected to his role or exercising control over the victim because of that role, a factor common in child abuse cases. The Supreme Court held that Mr S abused his position as a close friend of the victim, rather than as an elder. There was also no policy justification for the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation to bear the risk or costs of a rape committed by an elder.

This judgment confirms that the two-stage test for vicarious liability will apply to all cases. It is also useful to have confirmation that elders and clergy are likely to be regarded as quasi-employees for these purposes, meaning that the principle of vicarious liability will apply to many faith-based organisations. The Supreme Court has, in addition, confirmed that organisations will not be vicariously liable just because they have deeper pockets than individual defendants.

Latest articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
20 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JD

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning and Infrastructure chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Transport chevron