Court of Appeal gives determination on vicarious liability

Judgement was reported yesterday on the case of Maga (By his Litigation Friend, The Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court) v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church. We reported on this case when it came before Mr Justice Jack in the High Court in 2009. The case involved the abuse of a child by a Roman Catholic priest.

There was an appeal to the Court of Appeal who have now given their judgment reported on the BAILLI website.

 The issues were:

1) The test for vicarious liability for deliberate acts of abuse. An employer becomes vicariously   liable for the wrongs done by an employee, where the act of the employee is closely connected with his or her work duties. So for instance, a care worker employed by a local authority in a children’s home would probably attach liability to the employer, if he or she abused children in their care.  The test is important in child abuse cases, because it enables the Claimant to get straight at the employer (who is more likely to be able to pay damages than the abuser).

2) The duty of care where there has been a failure to check earlier complaints of abuse. In this case, there were previous complaints of abuse against this priest.

3) The test for capacity to litigate – some people cannot bring legal proceedings by themselves because they do not have sufficient capacity, very briefly the ability to understand the nature of what they are doing, understand advice and make informed decisions.  

On the issue of vicarious liability, The Court of Appeal applied the “close connection” test to this case. Although the abuser in question was purporting to carry out his work as a priest, his real motive was to abuse his child victim. 

In relation to the duty of care test, the Court of Appeal found that the church clearly owed a duty of care to children who might be enticed by the priest to his place of work.

The Claimant also had a learning disability.  The judge at first instance had found that he did not have capacity for the purposes of litigation. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

The decision is good news for Claimants bringing claims against predatory paedophiles, who have used their position to draw them in to an abusive situation.

See other cases on vicarious liability.