Cox v Ministry of Justice (Rev 2)

The claimant, a catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, was injured when a prisoner working under her supervision negligently dropped a sack onto her back. The county court dismissed claims based on vicarious liability, a personal/non-delegable duty and statutory regulations. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which granted permission and heard argument on whether the relationship between prisoner-workers and the Prison Service was "akin to employment" and thus capable of giving rise to vicarious liability; secondary issues included whether a failure to provide manual handling training breached a duty and causally contributed to the accident.

1. Disposition: Appeal allowed on vicarious liability; the Court of Appeal held the Ministry of Justice vicariously liable for the negligence of the prisoner who caused the injury.
2. Ratio — vicarious liability: Applying the multifactorial synthesis derived from Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society ([2013] 2 AC 1), the court concluded that the relationship between the prison authority and the prisoner performing kitchen work was sufficiently "akin to employment". The factors supporting liability included (a) the prison had the means to compensate, (b) the activity was carried out on behalf of and for the benefit of the prison, (c) by assigning prisoners to the work the prison created the risk of torts occurring, and (d) the prisoners were subject to the prison's direction and control in the performance of the tasks. The prisoner-work here relieved the Prison Service of tasks otherwise performed by staff and formed part of the prison's enterprise in running and maintaining the establishment.
3. On the synthesis of stages: The court emphasised that the enquiry requires consideration both of the relationship (stage 1) and the connection between that relationship and the tort (stage 2); the two stages cannot be divorced.
4. Distinguishing considerations rejected: The court rejected the argument that compulsory status of prisoners, nominal pay, or lack of contractual mutuality precluded a finding of ‘‘akin to employment’’; such differences did not prevent liability and in some respects made the relationship closer to the employer model.
5. Direct duty / training: The court declined to overturn the judge’s factual finding that lack of manual handling training was not causally relevant. The County Court was entitled to conclude that the risk was obvious and that training would not have made the prisoner obey instructions or avoid the foolhardy conduct that caused the accident.
6. Remedy and practical consequence: The appeal was allowed on the ground of vicarious liability; if liability is accepted, quantum (if required) was to be remitted to the trial judge for determination.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal heard 29 January 2014; judgment allowing the appeal delivered 19 February 2014, allowing the claimant's appeal on vicarious liability and remitting quantum to the county court if necessary.
• Swansea County Court: His Honour Judge Keyser QC dismissed the claimant's personal injury claim on 3 May 2013; permission to appeal initially refused by the judge and subsequently granted by Hallett LJ on 8 August 2013.