• Send us a message

    Fill in our form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible

    Please enter name
    Please enter your telephone number
    Please enter your email address
    Please let us know which of offices would most convenient for you?
    Please enter the details of your enquiry
    Please enter the verification code
    Send us a message
  • Services for you
  • Services for business

Employer Not Liable for Post Christmas Party Assault

Employers can be found vicariously liable for the actions of their staff, but only if these occur in the course of their employment. Whilst an employer can, in some circumstances, be held legally responsible for an injury to a worker sustained during an office Christmas party, the High Court has ruled that a recruitment company was not liable for serious injuries inflicted by one member of staff on another some hours after the planned Christmas event had finished.

Clive Bellman worked as the sales manager for Northampton Recruitment Limited. He sought £1 million in damages from his employer after he suffered a fractured skull and very severe traumatic brain injury as a result of being punched in the face by John Major, the managing director of the company. The incident took place after the work Christmas party at a golf club had passed without event and staff members had adjourned to the bar of the nearby Hilton Hotel. This was not a pre-planned extension to the party.

For some time, the conversation was on social and sporting topics, but later turned to work matters. At around 3:00am, Mr Major became angry with Mr Bellman after he questioned one of his management decisions. He twice punched him hard in the face and Mr Bellman fell, hitting his head on the marble floor. His head injuries were so serious that he is unlikely to return to any paid employment and lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.

Lawyers acting for Mr Bellman claimed that Northampton Recruitment Limited was vicariously liable for Mr Major's actions and the consequences of the attack because he was acting 'in the course or scope of his employment'. The High Court disagreed, however. In its view, what took place at the hotel was a drunken discussion that resulted from a personal choice to have yet further alcohol long after the works event had ended. The fact that the dispute was about work did not provide a sufficient connection to support a finding of vicarious liability against the company that employed the two men. They had gone to the hotel for an impromptu drink and they and the other staff were engaged in a recreational activity.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.