For more information and advice on vicarious liability for an employee’s wrongdoing, contact us on 01332 226 149 or complete the form below.
The case of WM Morrison Supermarkets plc-v-Various Claimants went before the Supreme Court recently and gave employers a better understanding of when they may be found to be vicariously liable for the acts of their employees.
Employment|26 August 2020
Insight
Andrew Skelton was a Senior Auditor at WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (Morrisons). A short time before he committed the wrongdoing which led to this case, he was subject to a disciplinary process by Morrisons and received a verbal warning.
Mr Skelton was very upset at having been taken through a disciplinary process and he held a grudge against Morrisons. As a result, he decided to take what he felt was revenge on his employer.
Mr Skelton saw this opportunity to take his revenge when he was given access to highly confidential and sensitive employee payroll data which detailed the salary of each employee. The purpose of him having access to this information was so that he could provide it to Morrisons’ auditors, KPMG.
However, Mr Skelton copied the payroll data onto a personal USB drive and uploaded the data to a publicly accessible file sharing website, and then took steps to try to implicate a fellow employee who was part of the previous disciplinary proceedings.
When Mr Skelton’s actions were discovered, he was prosecuted, found guilty of fraud offences, and was jailed.
The case against Morrisons arose out of a group of former and current employees bringing a claim against Morrisons directly for the actions of Mr Skelton. The question in the case was whether Morrisons was vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Skelton.
Before the matter reached the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal had both said that, in their view, Morrisons was vicariously liable for Mr Skelton’s actions, as essentially he was given access to the information and that allowed him to do what he did, albeit without authorisation. They said that Mr Skelton’s motive was not relevant.
The Supreme Court however disagreed.
Lord Reed in the Supreme Court said that the lower courts had misinterpreted the legal principles governing vicarious liability in the following ways:
The decision of the Supreme Court was that Morrisons was not vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Skelton on the basis that he was acting entirely for personal reasons and there was no close connection between what he had been asked to do by Morrisons and what he did when he uploaded the information to the internet.
The Supreme Court’s decision seems to be a sensible one and will be welcomed by employers.
The decision sets the precedent that an employer may not be vicariously liable for an employee’s actions if those actions cannot be fairly and reasonably regarded as done by the employee while acting in the ordinary course of their employment. In establishing this, a court will have to look at the employee’s motives.
Please note, the information included in this update is correct at the date of publishing.
Related Services
Understand employer rights when employees have second jobs, including contracts, working time, conflicts of interest and dismissal.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
Employment law tips for employers managing absence, flexibility and inclusion during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Read More
Guidance for employers on managing workplace distraction, excessive phone use and digital overload at work.
Read More
Key April 2026 changes to trade union recognition rules and what employers should do ahead of wider reforms later this year.
Read More
Government consultation begins on NDA restrictions under the Employment Rights Act 2025, with changes expected from 2027.
Read More
Employers can voluntarily publish menopause and gender pay gap action plans from April 2026 ahead of the 2027 legal requirement.
Read More
Understand SSP 2026 updates, employer responsibilities, and common pitfalls to keep your business compliant and protect staff rights.
Read More
EAT confirms employers should assess redundancies forward-looking, not retrospectively, when deciding if collective consultation is needed.
Read More
Learn the 2026 National Minimum Wage rates, common employer pitfalls, and how to stay compliant with new Fair Work Agency rules.
Read More
ERA 2025 reforms take effect February 2026, changing industrial action rules, employee protections, and union obligations.
Read More