Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 27.8 MB]
Personal Injury
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

  • FREE
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Course Aims:

This podcast is aimed as a refresher of the state of the current case law on vicarious liability. Starting from the premise that this is an area that defies a coherent analysis by comparing like cases, Patricia Leonard and Rosalind Coe QC discuss the principles to be applied and how they have begun to change so as to widen the net for those in a position of ‘control’.

After completing the course you will:
  • Understand the rationale behind vicarious liability and how it comes about;
  • Understand the basis on which vicarious liability can arise;
  • Understand that the way the courts approach questions of vicarious liability have changed in recent years;
  • Be aware of the different considerations that might arise between vicarious liability in and employment context and vicarious liability outside employment;
  • Understand what is meant by ‘sufficiently close connection’;
  • Understand what is meant by the wider test of ‘control’;
  • Understand who has the burden of prove on the issue of vicarious liability;
  • Be aware of some recent case law on dual vicarious liability.
General Interest Difficulty: 2 of 5
Case Update
Panel Discussion
Sources and References:
  • Brink's Global Services Inc and others v Igrox Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1207;
  • Gravil v Carroll and another [2008] ICR 1222;
  • Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22;
  • MAGA v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church [2010] EWCA Civ 256;
  • Mattis v Pollock [2003] EWCA Civ 887;
  • N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2006] EWHC 3041 (QB);
  • Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society and The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools [2010] EWCA Civ 1106 ('The St. Williams Litigation');
  • Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1151.

This podcast is about the expanding ambit of the law on vicarious liability. Traditionally confined to employment situations, the courts have taken an increasingly policy based line in deciding where losses are to be allocated. This development has in part been prompted by a recent spate of sex offence cases where questions of ‘control’ rather that strict employment status have played a major role in deciding outcomes.

Podcast added: 28/02/2011

Podcast last reviewed: 2012-02-27

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com