Wm Morrison Supermarkets Case Analysis

Lord Dyson quotation is taken from the case of AM Mohamud v WM Morison Supermarkets and the issue is that of the validity of ‘close connection test’ in vicarious liability. The test for holding an employer vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of an employee has been irreconcilable. The following essay will critically analyse whether AM Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc has resolved the difficulties. The essay begins by analysing the doctrine of vicarious liability. Then, will move on to discuss the justification of employment relationship. This will be followed by a critical analysis on the arguments which challenge and support the “close connection test” for imposing vicarious liability and the manner in which the courts justify …show more content…
Secondly, is by demonstrating that the employee commits the tort . Thirdly, is by showing that the employee commits the tort during the course of employment . An employer will not be liable if the employee is in frolic of its own . In addition, the employee must be within the reasonable time and space of the employment …show more content…
Despite that the abuses were not authorised by the employer, it was held that the warden acts were so closely connected with his employment, and that make it right to hold the employer liable for vicarious liability. Following this development, the “close connection test” was applied and succeeded in Mattis v Pollock, where a bouncer intentional stabbed a person in a nightclub, and in Dubai Aluminium in a case involving fraud. But, no vicarious liability found where the employee merely takes an advantage of the employer (N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police