Cox v Ministry of Justice

Vicarious liability can arise without a contract of employment. A relationship qualifies where the tortfeasor performs assigned activities as an integral part of the defendant’s operation and for its benefit, rather than as part of an independent business, and the assignment creates the risk of the tort.

The defendant need not pursue commercial objectives or profit. Contractual status, commercial wages and aligned personal objectives are not essential. Once the established criteria are satisfied, a separate assessment of whether liability is fair, just and reasonable is generally unnecessary. The criteria remain flexible, and novel circumstances may justify standing back to consider the justice of the result. A public prison service was accordingly liable for negligence committed by a prisoner working as an integrated member of its catering operation.

Mrs Cox, the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, was injured when a prisoner working in the prison kitchen negligently dropped a sack of rice on her back. The County Court found the prisoner negligent but dismissed the claim because it considered that his compulsory, nominally paid relationship with the prison service was not akin to employment.

The Court of Appeal allowed Mrs Cox’s appeal in Cox v Ministry of Justice [2014] EWCA Civ 132; [2015] QB 107. It held that the prisoners’ kitchen work was essential to the prison’s operation and was performed on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the prison service.

The Ministry appealed. The central issue was whether the relationship between the prison service and a prisoner working in its kitchen was capable of imposing vicarious liability for the prisoner’s negligence.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Reed delivered the court’s sole judgment, with which Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Dyson and Lord Toulson agreed.

1. The court applied the approach established in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56; [2013] 2 AC 1. Outside employment, vicarious liability can arise where an individual performs activities assigned by the defendant as an integral part of the defendant’s operation and for its benefit. The activities must not be entirely attributable to a recognisably independent business, and their assignment must create the risk of the tort.

2. The five features identified in that authority were not equally significant. Greater means and the availability of insurance were unlikely to possess independent significance: wealth was not a ground of liability, and defendants insured because they were liable. Control meant the power to direct what the tortfeasor did, rather than how the work was performed. Its absence could negative liability, but the principal considerations were activity undertaken on the defendant’s behalf, integration into its operation and the risk created by assigning that activity.

3. Commerciality and profit were unnecessary. It was sufficient that a defendant pursued activities in furtherance of its own interests. Contractual employment, a commercial wage, aligned personal objectives and a conventional tax or national-insurance classification were also unnecessary. Technical arguments concerning employment status could not defeat liability where the substantive relationship satisfied the criteria.

4. The prisoners selected for kitchen work were integrated into the prison’s catering operation. They worked as part of its team, under staff direction, and provided meals which the prison service had to supply. Their work directly benefited the prison service, and assigning kitchen activities to them created a foreseeable risk of negligent conduct within that field. Mr Inder’s admitted negligence occurred while performing those assigned activities. The prison service was therefore vicariously liable.

5. The compulsory and rehabilitative context did not alter that conclusion. A statutory duty under the Prison Rules 1999 to provide useful work did not exclude vicarious liability, and the prison service retained a meaningful choice over the work and the prisoners selected for it. No distinct obstacle arose under section 2(1)(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.

6. The established criteria ordinarily embody the inquiry whether liability is fair, just and reasonable, so a separate case-by-case reassessment would create uncertainty. They must not, however, be applied mechanically. In novel circumstances it may be valuable to stand back and examine the justice of the result, consistently with Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association [2013] UKSC 66; [2014] AC 537. Liability in this case was just and reasonable.

• United Kingdom Supreme Court: In Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10 , the court unanimously dismissed the Ministry’s appeal and upheld the imposition of vicarious liability.
• Court of Appeal: The court allowed Mrs Cox’s appeal in Cox v Ministry of Justice [2014] EWCA Civ 132 ; [2015] QB 107 . It held that the prisoners’ kitchen work formed part of the prison service’s operation and was performed for its benefit.
• Swansea County Court: His Honour Judge Keyser QC found that Mr Inder had negligently injured Mrs Cox but dismissed her claim because the relationship between the prisoner and the prison service was not sufficiently akin to employment.