Casenote: Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC

• Author: Martha Ní Dhochartaigh
• Position: Senior Freshman, LL.B. (Business) candidate at Trinity College Dublin
• Pages: 203-211

© 2017 Martha Ní Dhochartaigh and Dublin University Law Society

CASE NOTE: MOHAMUD V WM MORRISON

SUPERMARKETS PLC

MARTHA NÍ DHOCHARTAIGH*

Introduction

The question of whether a person is acting within the scope of their

employment is central to the doctrine of vicarious liability. In 2016, a

discernible shift in the UK Supreme Court’s interpretation of the

meaning of ‘within the scope of their employment’ was evident in

Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc,

1

where the application of the

‘close connection test’ was broadened. In this case, the UK Supreme

Court examined the question of whether or not there were grounds for

the appeal of the claimant (Mohamud) who was verbally and physically

assaulted by an employee of the defendant (Morrisons). The claimant

submitted that the close connection test should be replaced with a

broader test of whether an employee was acting as a representative of

the company. After an extensive examination of the development of

vicarious liability, it was held that the close connection test should be

retained, albeit in an altered form. The court expanded the ‘close

connection test’ to one of ‘causal connection.’ This broadening of the

close connection test has implications that significantly alter the nature

of vicarious liability by increasing the potential liability of employers

over their employees.

I. Background

Historically, the test for determining vicarious liability was the Salmond

test. It defined a tort committed by a servant in the course of their

employment as ‘(a) a wrongful act authorised by the master or (b) a

wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the

* Senior Freshman, LL.B. (Business) candidate at Trinity College Dublin. The author wishes

to acknowledge Dáire McMullin, Senior Editor at the Trinity College Law Review, for his

helpful suggestions throughout the editing process. Special thanks to the author’s family

and friends, especially Barbara, Albert, and Javier, for their constant support and

encouragement. All errors and omissions remain the author’s own.

1

[2016] UKSC 11, [2016] AC 677.