Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34

An employee sued his employer for harassment by a manager, claiming a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The House of Lords established that employers can be held vicariously liable for an employee's breach of this statutory duty.

Facts

Mr William Majrowski, an audit co-ordinator for Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust (‘the Trust’), alleged that he had been subjected to bullying, intimidation, and harassment by his departmental manager, Mrs Sandra Freeman. The alleged conduct, which he claimed was motivated by homophobia, included being rude, overly critical, and isolating him. As a result, Mr Majrowski suffered psychiatric injury and was unable to work. He initiated proceedings against the Trust, not the manager directly, for damages. The claim was based on the Trust’s vicarious liability for Mrs Freeman’s alleged breach of the statutory tort created by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Trust applied to have the claim struck out, arguing that the Act did not impose vicarious liability on an employer. The case reached the House of Lords on this preliminary legal issue.

Issues

The central legal issue before the House of Lords was whether an employer could be held vicariously liable for the breach of a statutory duty imposed on an employee by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Specifically, does the common law doctrine of vicarious liability apply to the statutory tort of harassment under the 1997 Act?

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that an employer can be vicariously liable for harassment committed by an employee in the course of their employment. The judgment affirmed that vicarious liability is a common law principle that applies to breaches of statutory obligations unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes it.

Lord Nicholls’s Reasoning

Lord Nicholls, delivering the leading speech, established a general presumption that vicarious liability applies to statutory torts. He reasoned that since vicarious liability is a principle of common law, it should apply to new statutory causes of action just as it does to common law ones, unless the statute indicates otherwise. He stated:

Vicarious liability is a common law principle of strict, no-fault liability. In the absence of a contrary indication in the statute, the presumption is that the principle of vicarious liability applies to a breach of a statutory duty, obligation or prohibition which gives rise to a civil right of action.

Lord Nicholls found nothing in the 1997 Act to displace this presumption. On the contrary, he argued that applying vicarious liability furthered the Act’s purpose of providing effective protection and remedies to victims of harassment. Many harassers might be employees of limited financial means, making a claim against the employer the only practical route to compensation. He also confirmed that the standard ‘close connection’ test, established in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd, would apply to determine whether the employee’s actions occurred in the course of employment.

Baroness Hale’s Concurring Opinion

Baroness Hale delivered a concurring opinion, strongly endorsing the outcome from a policy perspective, particularly in the context of workplace bullying. She emphasised the vulnerability of individuals at work and the need for an effective remedy. She powerfully argued:

But the Act is also, and perhaps primarily, about protecting the victims of harassment. Work is one of the places where people are most vulnerable to the sort of persistent, bullying behaviour which the Act is designed to redress. If the employer is not liable, the victim may be left with a right without a remedy against the person who is truly responsible for the situation in which the harassment has occurred.

She concluded that holding the employer liable aligns with the purpose of the Act and the principles of vicarious liability, which place responsibility on the enterprise that creates the risk of such torts occurring.

Implications

The decision in Majrowski is a landmark case in both employment law and the law of tort. It unequivocally established that vicarious liability can arise from a breach of a statutory duty, not just common law torts. This significantly broadened the scope for claims against employers, particularly for workplace bullying and harassment. It provided a vital avenue for redress for employees, allowing them to sue their employer, who is typically in a better financial position to pay damages and is responsible for managing the workplace environment. The case confirmed the ‘close connection’ test as the appropriate standard for determining whether the harassment occurred within the course of employment, reinforcing modern principles of vicarious liability.

Verdict: The appeal was dismissed.

Source: Majrowski v Guy's and T Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34