Close Connection Test CASES
In English law, the close connection test asks whether an employee’s (or analogous worker’s) wrongful act was so closely connected with the functions entrusted to them that it is fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable. The test is most prominent in intentional torts (such as assaults or abuse) but applies across vicarious liability once the relevant relationship is established.
Definition and principles
The analysis has two stages. First, identify the “field of activities” the employer entrusted to the wrongdoer: what the job involved in substance, not merely the job title. Secondly, assess whether the wrongful conduct was so closely connected with those activities that liability should be imposed. A mere opportunity to commit the tort is not enough. Personal vendettas and acts entirely for the employee’s private ends usually break the connection, whereas misuse of an entrusted role to interact with, control, or confront the claimant often strengthens it. The fact that the act was deliberate or criminal does not bar liability if it was a misuse of the very responsibilities the employer assigned.
Common examples
- Security and hospitality: a doorkeeper or security guard assaults a patron while ejecting them. The confrontation arises from the role; the employer may be liable if excessive force is used.
- Retail and customer interaction: an employee, while dealing with a customer, commits an assault or uses discriminatory abuse in the course of telling the customer to leave. The wrongful act is tied to the performance of customer-facing duties.
- Caring and supervisory roles: abuse committed by a person placed in authority and intimate contact with those in their care may be closely connected to the entrusted role, even though the acts are intentional and egregious.
- Work social events and authority: a manager asserts workplace authority at a company function and assaults a subordinate during that assertion. The connection may be close where the wrong flows from the exercise of managerial authority.
- Not a close connection: an employee accesses data or contacts solely to pursue a private grudge against the employer or the world at large. That is a personal mission, not the employer’s business.
Legal implications
If the close connection test is satisfied, the employer is strictly (secondarily) liable alongside the employee, even without proof of the employer’s personal fault. Independent contractors are generally outside vicarious liability, although some relationships are treated as “akin to employment” depending on control, integration, and enterprise risk. The test is distinct from non-delegable duties, which impose a personal duty of care on the defendant to ensure that reasonable care is taken. Where multiple parties contributed to the loss, rights of contribution and indemnity may apply. Insurance, particularly employers’ or public liability cover, often responds but turns on policy wording and notification.
Practical importance
Early case assessment should gather clear evidence of the employee’s actual duties, how the incident arose, and whether the wrongdoing was a misuse of the responsibilities the employer conferred. Minutes, job descriptions, training materials, workplace policies, and accounts from witnesses help to show whether the act was part of dealing with a customer, patient, pupil, or colleague, or whether it was a personal frolic. For defendants, it is critical to show that the wrongdoing was wholly independent of the role. For claimants, it is useful to frame the facts around the risk created by entrusting the employee with that role and those interactions.
See also: Vicarious liability; Course of employment; Relationship akin to employment; Non-delegable duty; Independent contractor; Intentional torts; Employers’ liability.
Home » Close Connection Test
A disgruntled employee deliberately leaked colleagues' personal data. The Supreme Court held that the employer, Morrisons, was not vicariously liable because the employee's act was a personal vendetta, not an act done a in the course of his employment. Facts An employee of Morrisons, Mr Andrew Skelton, a senior IT internal auditor, developed a grievance against the company following disciplinary proceedings. Tasked with transmitting payroll data for the entire workforce to an external auditor, Skelton illicitly copied the data, which included names, addresses, bank account details, and salaries of nearly 100,000 employees. He subsequently uploaded this data to a publicly
A supermarket employee assaulted a customer following an initial query at a petrol station kiosk. The Supreme Court held the employer, Morrisons, vicariously liable for the unprovoked attack, broadening the 'close connection' test for an employer's liability for an employee's wrongful acts. Facts The appellant, Mr Mohamud, visited a petrol station kiosk operated by the respondent, WM Morrison Supermarkets plc. He approached the employee on duty, Mr Amjid Khan, to ask if it was possible to print some documents from a USB stick. Mr Khan responded to this legitimate customer enquiry with foul, racist, and threatening language, ordering Mr Mohamud
The warden of a school for children with behavioural difficulties sexually abused pupils. The House of Lords held the school vicariously liable for his intentional, criminal acts, establishing a 'close connection' test between the torts and the employment context. Facts Hesley Hall Ltd, the appellant, operated a residential school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Mr Neville Farrer Grain was employed as the warden of a boarding house attached to the school. His duties involved the day-to-day care of the children residing in the house. The respondents were former pupils who, during their time at the school, were systematically
A law firm was held vicariously liable for a partner’s dishonest assistance in a client's fraud. The House of Lords ruled the partner's wrongful acts, including drafting sham agreements, were 'closely connected' to his role, falling within the ordinary course of business. Facts Mr Anthony Amhurst, a partner in the law firm Amhurst & Co, dishonestly assisted a client, Mr Hany Salaam, in a fraudulent scheme against Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd (Dubal). Mr Salaam had entered into a genuine consultancy agreement with Dubal, but this was later supplemented by sham agreements drafted by Mr Amhurst. These agreements were designed to
Victims of child abuse at a residential school sued the religious institute whose members committed the abuse. The Supreme Court held the institute vicariously liable, finding the relationship between the institute and its members was 'akin to employment', broadening liability beyond formal employment. Facts Multiple claimants brought actions for damages arising from physical and sexual abuse they suffered as children while resident at St William’s Community Home in Yorkshire between the 1950s and 1990s. The abuse was perpetrated by members of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (‘the Institute’), a Roman Catholic religious order. The members, known
