Mr C Okoro v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd: What does the law say about employees who fall asleep at work?
Employee falls asleep at work and is unfairly dismissed; explore lessons for employers on investigations, mitigation, and proportionality.
Read More
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.
Contact Us
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.
Related Services
Knowledge
Employee falls asleep at work and is unfairly dismissed; explore lessons for employers on investigations, mitigation, and proportionality.
Read MoreHow employers can handle whistleblowing effectively to reduce risk and prevent escalation, drawing lessons from the Argence-Lafon case.
Read MoreExplore lessons from the Ritchie V Goom Electrical Ltd case on managing conflicting workstyles and age diversity in modern offices.
Read MoreThursday
27
November
Join our expert-led webinar on the Employment Rights Act and discover what every HR professional needs to know before it takes effect.
Book your placeA clear roadmap from our Employment & HR Law team on upcoming Employment Rights Bill changes employers need to prepare for.
Read moreNorman v Lidl: Redundancy scoring based on degree requirement found to be indirect age discrimination, costing the employer over £50,000.
Read MoreA Tribunal ruling may end the two-year limit on backdated holiday pay claims, creating major risks for employers.
Read MoreKennedy v Hendy Group highlights the importance of supporting employees in redundancy and exploring alternative roles fairly.
Read MoreTeacher unfairly dismissed due to trade union activity and disability. The Tribunal awarded £370K in this landmark case.
Read MoreWatson v Roke Manor Research Ltd shows how non-verbal managerial behaviour can amount to discrimination and have legal risks for employers.
Read MoreCan external HR consultants be held liable for dismissal decisions? We review Handa v Station Hotel & Others for key lessons.
Read MoreEAT confirms employers can avoid liability for harassment if they take reasonable steps like EDI training and reinforcing workplace values.
Read MoreScroll to next section
Scroll back to the top
On Monday 29 September, Flint Bishop successfully completed the acquisition of the entire business of Lupton Fawcett LLP. You have been forwarded to the page most relevant to your visit.
Please feel free to explore our website and learn more about our legal services and professionals, including those who have recently joined us from Lupton Fawcett.