On appeal from: [2016] EWCA Civ 1217

This appeal considered whether a person who is sued in civil litigation for alleged misconduct by his employees (or others for whom he is vicariously liable) owes those employees a duty of care in the conduct in his defence.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal.  The Court considered that, as police officers have no contract of employment, although they relied heavily on the analogy of the implied term in employment contracts of mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee, they did not refer the Court to any decided case in any jurisdiction which holds that the duty of care for which the officers contend can be derived from this mutual implied term. Therefore the Court concluded that it could not derive such an obligation as the law for determining the existence of a duty of care should proceed incrementally and by analogy with previous decisions.

For judgment, please download: [2018] UKSC 40
For Court’s Press Summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

To watch the hearing, please visit: Supreme Court Website (6 Mar 2018 morning session) (6 Mar 2018 afternoon session) (7 Mar 2018 morning session) (7 Mar 2018 afternoon session)