Shelbourne v Cancer Research UK

The scope of an occupier’s or organiser’s duty of care at a social event is fact-specific. The provision of alcohol does not automatically require written behavioural declarations, comprehensive risk assessments for every form of misconduct, specially trained volunteers, or continuous security monitoring. Reasonable precautions must be assessed in context, including the nature of the event, its history and the behaviour reasonably apparent at the time.

For vicarious liability, the employee’s field of activities must be assessed broadly, but the concept has boundaries. Attendance at a voluntary workplace social event does not itself make social conduct part of the employee’s entrusted activities. There must also be a sufficient connection between the employment and the wrongful act.

The claimant was injured at a Christmas party organised by staff of Cancer Research UK at its research institute. A visiting scientist, Robert Beilik, attempted to lift her on the dance floor after drinking, dropped her and caused a serious back injury.

The claimant sued Cancer Research UK in negligence and for vicarious liability. The Recorder in the Southend County Court dismissed both claims in a judgment given on 2 May 2018. Permission to appeal was granted on the grounds that the Recorder may have erred in law concerning the scope of the duty of care and vicarious liability. The appeal concerned whether the Recorder had correctly assessed the precautions required at the party and whether Beilik’s conduct was sufficiently connected with his work.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder had not erred in finding that Cancer Research UK owed a duty of care but had not breached it.
2. The scope of the duty was fact-specific. Everett v Comojo (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 13 gave graduated examples of possible precautions in different types of establishment. Its reference to staff being trained to identify trouble and alert security did not establish a rule applicable to every social gathering. The use of “may” showed that the passage was illustrative.
3. On the facts, the risk assessment reasonably addressed alcohol consumption by restricting access to laboratories after drinking. The absence of previous incidents, the adult and workplace setting, the presence of organisers and security staff, and the fact that the earlier lifting incidents had not appeared sufficiently serious to require intervention were relevant. Hindsight did not determine what precautions ought reasonably to have been taken.
4. For vicarious liability, the applicable questions were those stated in Mohamud v W Morrisons Supermarkets [2016] UKSC 11: the employee’s entrusted field of activities, assessed broadly, and whether there was a sufficient connection between that position and the wrongful conduct. A broad assessment did not mean that the field of activities had no boundaries.
5. Beilik’s field of activities was his research work. He was not doing that work when he attended the voluntary party or attempted to lift the claimant. The party did not transform social interaction into an entrusted employment activity. The cases concerning employees who misused authority or committed torts while performing their work, including Rose v Plenty and Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd, were materially different. The necessary connection was absent and Cancer Research UK was not vicariously liable.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Appeal from the Southend County Court dismissed. The Recorder’s judgment of 2 May 2018, dismissing the negligence and vicarious liability claims, was upheld.