Are employers responsible for the conduct of employees at Christmas parties?

Facts
Mr Major, the Managing Director (MD) of Northampton Recruitment Ltd hired a school friend, Mr Bellman as a sales manager in 2010. In 2011 the company organised a Christmas party at the golf club. The Christmas party concluded without incident and after the party a number of guests went on for additional drinks at a nearby hotel. Although this was not a pre-planned extension to the party, Mr Major paid for taxis to the hotel and for some of the drinks.

The topic of conversation mainly related to social issues, however, around 3am it turned to work issues and Mr Major began lecturing the employees. Mr Bellman challenged him in a non-aggressive manner and was then punched twice by Mr Major and knocked unconscious which resulted in severe brain damage.

Mr Bellman subsequently raised a claim for damages against the company on the grounds that it was vicariously liable for Mr Major's conduct.

Law
Vicarious liability is the legal principle that makes an employer liable for the acts or omissions of its employees.

The key issue in any case of vicarious liability is whether the employee was acting in a personal capacity or in the course of their employment.

There is a two-stage test for determining vicarious liability:

1 is there a sufficiently close connection between the employment and the wrongful act that the conduct can be regarded as in the course of employment.

2 if so, would it be just and reasonable to hold the employer vicariously liable.

In the case of Chief Constable of the Lincolnshire Police v Stubbs and other, a police officer was held to have sexually harassed a female colleague even though the incidents occurred at a pub outside working hours. The Employment Appeal Tribunal commented that social functions away from work premises immediately after work or for an organised party were within the course of employment.

“For an employer to be held vicariously liable, it must also be shown that the employer created or contributed to a material risk of harm. It is not however sufficient that the employer merely provided the opportunity for the harm.”

The Equality Act 2010 also makes an employer liable for acts of discrimination carried out by employees in connection with their employment unless they can show that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the wrongdoer.

Decision
The High Court dismissed Mr Bellman's claim and held that the company was not vicariously liable for the assault by Mr Major.

The court found that there was an insufficient connection between the position in which Mr Major was employed (MD) and the assault to make Northampton Recruitment Ltd liable.

The judge commented that the incident occurred during an “impromptu drink” after the work Christmas party had ended and the drinking session at the hotel was not a seamless extension of the party. The MD's wide ranging role did not mean that he was on duty at the hotel just because he was in the presence of other employees.

Comment
In the above case, the court found that the time and place of the incident (an unplanned post-party drinks session) was particularly relevant in concluding that the company was not vicariously liable for Mr Major's actions.

Office Christmas parties are considered an extension of the workplace and employers have the same legal responsibilities for what happens during the party as they do during normal working hours. The decision does not however establish that employers will never be liable for employees' actions at post-Christmas party drinks as each case will depend on the specific facts and circumstances.

To minimise the risk of being held liable for an employee's wrongdoing, employers should ensure that they have appropriate policies in place regarding behaviour at work-related events and consider reminding employees about the expected standards of conduct at social events.