If you require any legal support with employment or HR related issues, contact a member of our Employment team on 01332 226 155 or fill in the form below.
In the case of Andrew Chell -v- Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited — [2022] EWCA Civ 7, the Court of Appeal has considered the extent to which an employer could be vicariously liable for practical jokes by staff that result in injury.
28 March 2022
Case Study
The claimant, Mr Chell, suffered a perforated eardrum, hearing loss and tinnitus whilst working at a site controlled by the respondent, Tarmac, because the respondent’s (Mr Heath) had placed two pallet targets on a bench adjacent to the claimant’s ear and hit them with a hammer causing a “loud explosion”.
Mr Heath’s employment was terminated as a result of the incident.
The claimant was employed by a third party, Roltec, and the incident occurred following what was described as a period of tension involving Tarmac staff not welcoming Roltec staff on site, which was highlighted to management by the claimant.
The claimant alleged that the respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of their employee as well as in breach of their direct duty of care towards him for failing to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury.
The parties accepted that whilst the hammer was work equipment, the pellet targets had not been supplied by Tarmac, but had been brought on to site from outside.
The claimant lost his case in the first instance and on appeal, both in respect of vicarious liability and breach of duty. He appealed to the Court of Appeal claiming that the lower courts had misapplied the law to the facts.
Case Study
The court decided that the employer was not vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Heath and his actions were not “done in the course of employment”.
He had not been authorised to do what he did, and neither were his actions an unlawful mode of doing an authorised act. Mr Heath’s actions did not advance the purposes of the respondent, and no part of Mr Heath’s work required him to hit pellet targets.
Mr Heath’s actions were not deemed to be so closely connected to what he was authorised to undertake such as to make it “fair, just and reasonable” to impose liability, as:
As highlighted by this case, it is vital that employers take steps to prevent any backlash from employee’s seemingly innocent antics.
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More