WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12

Facts

  • In 2014, Andrew Skelton, a senior internal auditor at Morrisons, leaked payroll data of approximately 100,000 employees.
  • Skelton had previously been disciplined by Morrisons for misuse of company systems for personal purposes.
  • In retaliation, Skelton copied payroll data onto a personal USB drive and uploaded it to a file-sharing website, also disseminating the data to newspapers.
  • The leaked data caused significant distress to affected employees, who brought claims against Morrisons for breach of statutory duty, misuse of private information, and breach of confidence.
  • The claimants argued Morrisons was vicariously liable for Skelton’s actions as he accessed the data in the course of his employment.
  • Morrisons contended Skelton’s actions were motivated by personal malice and were unrelated to his employment duties.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a sufficiently close connection between Skelton’s wrongful conduct and his employment to impose vicarious liability on Morrisons.
  2. Whether vicarious liability applies where an employee’s wrongful act is motivated by personal malice rather than in furtherance of the employer’s business.
  3. Whether imposing vicarious liability on Morrisons in these circumstances would be fair, just, and reasonable.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court held that Morrisons was not vicariously liable for Skelton’s deliberate data breach.
  • The Court found Skelton’s actions were not carried out in furtherance of Morrisons’ business but were driven by personal animosity.
  • It was determined that vicarious liability does not extend to acts done for purely personal reasons, even if facilitated by employment.
  • The judgment reversed the Court of Appeal’s finding of vicarious liability against Morrisons.

Legal Principles

  • Vicarious liability requires a sufficiently close connection between the employee’s wrongful conduct and their employment duties.
  • The motivation for the act, particularly where it is a personal vendetta, is relevant in assessing liability.
  • The “close connection” test, as established in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, is central to determining liability.
  • Employers are not generally liable for actions of employees undertaken solely for personal reasons and not in furtherance of the employer’s business.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified that employers are not vicariously liable for employees’ intentional data breaches motivated by personal animosity and not performed in furtherance of the employer’s business, defining the limits of vicarious liability in the context of employee misconduct involving sensitive data.

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