Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability makes one party (usually an employer) liable for the torts of another (usually an employee) committed in the course of employment, even though the employer is not personally at fault.
Last reviewed 14 June 2026
Two questions arise: is the relationship one capable of giving rise to vicarious liability — classically employment, now extended to relationships “akin to employment” (Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56) — and is there a sufficiently close connection between the wrongdoing and that relationship?
The “close connection” test comes from Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22; later decisions such as WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 have tightened how closely the act must be connected to the employee's authorised duties.
Key cases
- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22
- Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56
- WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12
Frequently asked questions
What is the test for vicarious liability?
A relationship capable of giving rise to it (employment or akin to employment) and a sufficiently close connection between that relationship and the tort committed (Lister v Hesley Hall).
Can an employer be liable without being at fault?
Yes. Vicarious liability is strict: the employer is liable for an employee's tort committed in the course of employment regardless of the employer's own fault.