Fletcher v Chancery Supplies Ltd

Vicarious liability requires evidence that the employee was acting in the course of employment and a sufficient connection between employment and the wrongful conduct. The court must identify the employee’s field of activities broadly, then examine why the wrongful act occurred and whether the connection makes employer liability just. An inference that an employee remained on duty cannot rest on matters such as giving the employer’s address, saying he was returning to the employer’s premises, or still wearing work clothing after normal hours. If the evidence does not reveal why the employee was crossing the road, the claimant may fail at the sufficient-connection stage even if the employee was at work.

Mr Fletcher, a police officer, was injured when he collided with Mr Traynor, who was crossing a road. Mr Traynor was employed by Chancery Supplies Ltd, trading as a plumbing and heating business. The trial recorder found Mr Traynor negligent and Mr Fletcher free from contributory negligence, but held the company vicariously liable. The company appealed. The issues were whether the evidence established that Mr Traynor was acting in the course of employment and, if so, whether crossing the road was sufficiently connected with his employment to impose vicarious liability.

The appeal was allowed. Lord Justice Longmore gave the judgment, with which Lord Justice Patten agreed.

1. Whether the employee was at work. Mr Traynor normally finished work at noon on Saturdays. There was no evidence that he had extended his shift. His statement giving the employer’s address, his reference to returning to the shop, and his continued wearing of work clothing did not provide a legitimate basis for inferring that he was still working at 12.45 pm. If his shift had ended and he was not acting in his employer’s time or for its benefit, he was not acting in the course of employment.
2. Sufficient connection. Applying the two-stage test restated in Mohamud v William Morrison Supermarkets Plc [2016] AC 677, the court first identifies the employee’s functions or field of activities broadly. Mr Traynor’s field was that of a shop assistant in a plumbing and heating shop. The court must then decide whether there was a sufficient connection between that employment and the wrongful conduct to make it just to impose liability.
3. The recorder could not properly treat the reason for Mr Traynor’s crossing the road as immaterial. Without evidence explaining why he had left the shop and was crossing back, the claimant had not shown the necessary connection between the employment and the negligence. The court rejected the suggestion that this result was unfair because the employer had not called Mr Traynor; the claimant could have sought to call him.

Order: Appeal allowed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed Chancery Supplies Ltd’s appeal from the Manchester County Court and Family Court decision of Recorder Sephton QC, which had found the company vicariously liable.