JXH v The Vicar, Parochial Church Council and Churchwardens of the Parish Church of Holcombe Rogus

Vicarious liability requires both a relationship of employment or quasi-employment and a close connection between the tort and acts authorised by that relationship. Mere “but for” causation, status, opportunity, or the fact that the wrongdoer could create the relevant circumstances is insufficient.

For a parish vicar, authorised activities include work furthering the Church of England’s parish-related activities, including appropriate pastoral care and religious instruction. A separate private project, even if enabled by the vicar’s ecclesiastical office and producing incidental parish benefits, does not necessarily fall within those activities. The court must assess the whole factual context and may use enterprise-risk considerations only as a final check.

The claimant sought £12,000 damages for two sexual assaults committed in 1979–1981 by Reverend Vickery House, then Vicar of Holcombe Rogus. The assaults and resulting psychiatric injury were admitted or proved, and the damages were agreed.

The claim was brought against the Parochial Church Council. The parties accepted that the relationship between the PCC and House satisfied stage 1 of the vicarious-liability test. The issue was whether the assaults satisfied stage 2: whether they were so closely connected with acts House was authorised to do that they could fairly and properly be regarded as committed in the course of his quasi-employment.

1. Applicable test. Following 2023 UKSC 15, vicarious liability required satisfaction of both stages: a relationship of employment or employment-like relationship, and the close-connection test. “But for” causation was insufficient.
2. Authorised activities. In the statutory context of the Church of England, House’s general authorised activities included activities furthering the work of the Church of England in the parish which were parish-related. This arose from the statutory structure and the functions of the incumbent and PCC, and did not require express PCC authorisation in every instance. It could include pastoral care and religious instruction.
3. The Community. The private quasi-monastic community was not part of House’s authorised activities as Vicar. It was separate from the PCC, the Parish and the Parish Church. The PCC’s knowledge and silence did not amount to implied authorisation or adoption. The Community’s incidental benefits to parish life did not alter that conclusion.
4. Close connection. The assaults occurred away from the Parish and its premises, outside ostensibly parish or church activities, and in contexts arising from House’s role as director of the Community rather than as Vicar. House was not metaphorically wearing his Vicar’s uniform. The claimant’s adult status, the absence of a relevant progression from grooming to the assaults, the source of House’s dominance, and the lack of an inextricable connection with authorised parish activities all pointed against liability. The fact that House’s office was a “but for” cause of the circumstances was not enough.
5. The policy back-check also supported the result. The Community was a separate personal project, not an enterprise whose parish-related benefits justified transferring the risk to the PCC. The claim was dismissed.