Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc [2020] UKSC 13

Facts

  • The claimants were former employees of Barclays Bank who alleged they had been sexually assaulted by a doctor during medical examinations arranged by the bank.
  • The doctor operated as an independent contractor, conducting medical assessments for Barclays Bank but running his own medical practice and retaining freedom to accept or reject referrals.
  • Barclays Bank arranged and benefitted from the medical examinations but contended it had no control over how the doctor conducted them, arguing the doctor was not an employee.

Issues

  1. Whether Barclays Bank plc could be held vicariously liable for the alleged sexual assaults committed by the independent medical examiner.
  2. Whether the relationship between Barclays Bank and the doctor was sufficiently "akin to employment" to impose vicarious liability.
  3. What legal tests determine when an employer may be vicariously liable for torts committed by independent contractors.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court concluded that the doctor was an independent contractor and not in a relationship "akin to employment" with Barclays Bank.
  • It found the bank exercised no relevant control over the doctor or his practice and that he could freely accept or decline work from the bank.
  • The Court held that vicarious liability does not extend to true independent contractor relationships.
  • The claims against Barclays Bank were dismissed.

Legal Principles

  • Vicarious liability imposes liability on employers for wrongful acts of employees in the course of employment, with a public policy aim of ensuring victim compensation and encouraging high standards.
  • The "akin to employment" test requires examination of the degree of control, the involvement of the employer, and the nature of the work.
  • The judgment affirms the need for a close relationship of employment-like characteristics for vicarious liability to apply.
  • True independent contractors generally fall outside the scope of vicarious liability.
  • The decision clarifies and limits the expansion of vicarious liability in line with prior authorities such as Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10 and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified that Barclays Bank could not be held vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of a truly independent contractor, emphasizing that only relationships exhibiting sufficient elements of employment can attract such liability.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal