The Court came to two different conclusions based on the differing facts in each case.
The facts
In Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 25, Mr Weddall was the Deputy Manager of a care home operated by Barchester Healthcare Ltd, where people with severe mental health issues resided. Mr Marsh was a Senior Health Assistant at the home - a position junior to Mr Weddall. Mr Weddall and Mr Marsh did not get on, each disliking aspects of the other's approach to his job. One evening Mr Weddall was on duty and found that he was short-staffed due to sickness absence. He telephoned Mr Marsh at home asking him if he was available to work the nightshift. Mr Marsh was free to accept or refuse the extra shift. Mr Marsh was very drunk at the time of the call and did not react well to receiving it. Shortly afterwards he rang the care home, indicating that he intended to resign. He then cycled to the care home and, when he saw Mr Weddall sitting in the garden at the front of the home, he attacked him very violently. Mr Marsh was subsequently convicted after pleading guilty to the assault and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
In Wallbank v Wallbank Fox Designs Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 25, Mr Wallbank was Managing Director of Wallbank Fox Designs Ltd. There were four employees (in addition to Mr Wallbank and his wife), including Mr Brown, who were employed in the manufacture of bed frames. Mr Brown worked as a powder coater. His job was to spray metal bed frames with a powder and load them on to a conveyor belt, which took them through an oven where the sprayed powder was fused to the frame. On the previous day and on the day of the assault, he had to be reminded to switch on the oven. On the morning of the assault, Mr Brown was watching a frame come out of the oven. Mr Wallbank noticed that only one other piece of furniture was coming through the oven, which left a substantial gap in the feeding in of frames resulting in a waste of fuel from the heated oven. Mr Wallbank asked Mr Brown why he had not loaded more furniture on to the conveyor belt and pointed out that he was losing heat from the oven. Mr Brown did not reply. Mr Wallbank then walked to the other end of the oven, with the intention of helping Mr Brown load furniture on to the belt. He said to Mr Brown "come on", indicating that it was his intention to assist him with loading. Mr Brown joined Mr Wallbank at the other end of the oven, placed his hand on Mr Wallbank's face and threw him on to a table approximately 12 feet away. Mr Wallbank sustained a fractured vertebra as a result. Mr Brown was dismissed for gross misconduct and convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm.
The issue
In both cases the victim brought a claim against his employer for personal injury, alleging that the employer was vicariously liable. The judge in each case held that the employee who inflicted the violence was not acting in the course of his employment so the employer was not liable. The victims both appealed.
The decision
Applying the 'sufficiently close connection principle' to both cases, the Court held that in the Weddall case Mr Marsh was "acting personally for his own reasons" and had simply used the request to come to work as a "pretext for an act of violence" unconnected with his work. As such, the employer was not vicariously liable for the assault and the appeal was dismissed.
However, in the Wallbank case, Mr Brown assaulted Mr Wallbank in an immediate response to instructions given to him in relation to his work and as such he was "acting in the course of his employment". The employer was accordingly liable to pay damages to Mr Wallbank because of Mr Brown's conduct and the appeal was allowed.
Comment
The issue as to whether or not actions are sufficiently closely connected to employment to be treated as taking place in the course of employment will continue to be difficult to identify where they are simply work-related, rather than carried out in the workplace during working hours. The Court of Appeal's decision helps to clarify when an employer will be liable for an employee's violence towards a colleague.