BRINKS GLOBAL SERVICES INC AND OTHERS V IGROX LIMITED AND ANOTHER [2010] EWCA Civ 1207
FACTS:-
In May 2007, the Claimant entered into a contract to convey 627 bars of siolver from London to India. It was put into a container, which had to be fumigated by the Defendant, but one of their employees stole 15 bars of silver. At first instance, the trial judge held that the Defendant was vicariously liable for what had happened.
The Defendant appealed, submitting that the employee’s job only gave him the opportunity to commit the theft, it was not committed in the course of his employment.
JUDGMENT:-
Moore-Bick LJ considered a number of cases:-
The Defendant’s counsel had relied heavily on the case of Heasmans in which it was held that there was no vicarious liability for a cleaner who used telephones in the Claimant’s office to make long distance calls.
Moore-Bick LJ said that whilst all the circumstances had to be taken into account, the authorities supported the view that when making that a judgment, it was appropriate to consider whether the wrongful act could fairly be regarded as a risk reasonably incidental to the purpose for which the tortfeasor was employed.
In this case, the employee was employed to fumigate the container and its contents and to that extent he was instructed to deal with them. For that purpose he was authorised to enter the secure compound where the container was stored and enter the container. The fumigation process took about 24 hours and during that time no-one else was authorised to enter the container or deal with its contents. In those circumstances, the Defendant was in a broad sense responsible for its contents during the fumigation process. There was a sufficiently close connection between the theft of the silver and the purpose of the employment to make it fair and just that the Defendant should be held vicariously liable for the employee’s actions. The incidence of theft was a risk reasonably incidental to the purpose for which the employee was employed.
In relation to Heasman, the Moore-Bick LJ said that it was doubtful whether the case would now be decided in the same way.
Lord Justice Wilson and Lord Justice Longmore agreed.
FACTS:-
In May 2007, the Claimant entered into a contract to convey 627 bars of siolver from London to India. It was put into a container, which had to be fumigated by the Defendant, but one of their employees stole 15 bars of silver. At first instance, the trial judge held that the Defendant was vicariously liable for what had happened.
The Defendant appealed, submitting that the employee’s job only gave him the opportunity to commit the theft, it was not committed in the course of his employment.
JUDGMENT:-
Moore-Bick LJ considered a number of cases:-
- Heasmans v Clarity Cleaning Co. Ltd [1987] ICR 949
- Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716
- Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716
- Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827
- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22
- Dubai Aluminium Co. Limited v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48
- Mattis v Pollock [2003] EWCA Civ 887
- Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell [2004] UKPC 12
- Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica [2004] UKPC 47
- Gravil v Carroll [2008] EWCA Civ 689
The Defendant’s counsel had relied heavily on the case of Heasmans in which it was held that there was no vicarious liability for a cleaner who used telephones in the Claimant’s office to make long distance calls.
Moore-Bick LJ said that whilst all the circumstances had to be taken into account, the authorities supported the view that when making that a judgment, it was appropriate to consider whether the wrongful act could fairly be regarded as a risk reasonably incidental to the purpose for which the tortfeasor was employed.
In this case, the employee was employed to fumigate the container and its contents and to that extent he was instructed to deal with them. For that purpose he was authorised to enter the secure compound where the container was stored and enter the container. The fumigation process took about 24 hours and during that time no-one else was authorised to enter the container or deal with its contents. In those circumstances, the Defendant was in a broad sense responsible for its contents during the fumigation process. There was a sufficiently close connection between the theft of the silver and the purpose of the employment to make it fair and just that the Defendant should be held vicariously liable for the employee’s actions. The incidence of theft was a risk reasonably incidental to the purpose for which the employee was employed.
In relation to Heasman, the Moore-Bick LJ said that it was doubtful whether the case would now be decided in the same way.
Lord Justice Wilson and Lord Justice Longmore agreed.