‘Employers can breathe a sigh of relief at Supreme Court’s decision’

-

'Employers can breathe a sigh of relief at Supreme Court's decision'

“Employers around the UK can breathe a sigh of relief at the Supreme Court’s decision in the Morrisons’ case”, this is the opinion of Julia Wilson, a partner in the Employment practice at Baker McKenzie. The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal in a landmark ruling that confirmed that Morrisons is not vicariously liable for employee’s deliberate disclosure of personal data of co-workers.

Andrew Skelton, a former senior internal auditor leaked the payroll data of over 100,000 staff which resulted in thousands of Morrisons staff making claims against the supermarket. The Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the case was overturned by the Supreme Court stating the chain should not be held accountable for the criminal acts of an ex-employee.

The Supreme Court’s president, Lord Reed explained that the company should not be held accountable for Mr Skelton’s “personal vendetta” against the business, as he had received a disciplinary a month earlier. Lord Reed said that businesses can only be held liable for the actions of staff if they were linked to their daily duties.

HRreview Logo

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

Ms Wilson said:

The previous Court of Appeal decision had stretched the concept of an employer’s vicarious liability for its employees very far, to hold an employer liable for the acts of an employee who was pursuing a personal vendetta outside the workplace, and had deliberately tried to hide his wrongdoing.   In this case, the wrongdoing was a data breach and the unlawful release of personal data of over 125,000 Morrisons employees.  Whilst often the vicarious liability of an employer has limited effects (usually owing liability to one or a small handful of employees), in this case the data breach element amplified the risk to Morrisons – who faced over 9,000 claimant employees in the end.  If the Court of Appeal decision had been upheld, the level of damages Morrisons might have faced would be huge.  The Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision, finding that the wrongdoer’s actions were not sufficiently closely connected with his employment that Morrisons should be liable for them.

There is a sting in the tail: the Supreme Court considered whether an employer could be vicariously liable for data breaches at all under data protection law.  They have decided that an employer can be liable, and data breaches are daily news.  So in situations where an employee commits a data breach which is found to be “in the course of employment”, the employer can be liable.

Esther Smith, employment partner at UK law firm TLT said:

Employers will be pleased to learn that the Supreme Court has found in favour of Morrisons today, in relation to a major data breach maliciously caused by a rogue employee. The Supreme Court has held that Morrisons does not have to pay compensation to the employees whose personal data was leaked.

Following this decision, it is now less likely that there will be a finding of vicarious liability in cases where an employee’s actions are not ‘closely connected’ to their duties at work.

While this judgment will be reassuring for employers, it is important that organisations do not rest on their laurels and should continue to implement the right policies, procedures and employee training across their businesses.

Darius is the editor of HRreview. He has previously worked as a finance reporter for the Daily Express. He studied his journalism masters at Press Association Training and graduated from the University of York with a degree in History.

Latest news

Lauren Webb: Empowering women to lead the way in analytics and AI

Women remain wildly underrepresented in technical and digital leadership, making up just 22% of the UK’s AI talent. It’s jarring.

Employers urged to balance flexibility and fairness as England’s World Cup campaign begins

Employment lawyers are advising organisations to plan ahead for leave requests and workplace flexibility as the 2026 FIFA World Cup gets under way.

Amy Coleman on uncertainty and pressure at work

“Many of you shared feelings of uncertainty and pressure as the work evolves.”

Workers fear favouritism is driving workplace rewards and recognition

Many UK employees believe workplace rewards are influenced by favouritism, with women significantly less likely to view recognition as fair.
- Advertisement -

Curtis Holmes: Payroll is the driver for employee engagement

Payroll has long been treated as a back-office necessity: essential, but not something that shapes culture or drives engagement. This no longer stands.

Labour market yet to show major AI impact on jobs, govt adviser says

A government economic adviser has challenged predictions of widespread AI-driven unemployment, arguing labour market data has yet to show disruption.

Must read

Lottie Bazley: How can HR communicate best with internal comms during difficult times?

To tackle ongoing pressures amid cost of living crisis, how can HR professionals collaborate with internal comms teams to establish a two-way conversation?

World Cups: The acceptable face of productivity loss

One more sleep until we get to see England play in the World Cup semi-finals. I’m sure many of you are still pinching yourselves, waiting with bated breath for the 7pm kick off when England will look to book their place in football’s biggest game: the World Cup Final.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you