![barclays bridge baron barclays bridge baron](https://rowman.com/L/19/442/9781944201074.jpg)
Changes in the structures of employment, and of contracts for the provisions of services, are widespread. “Moreover, it seems clear to me that, adopting the approach of the Supreme Court, there will indeed be cases of independent contractors where vicarious liability will be established. Significantly, Lord Justice Irwin went on to say (at paragraph 45): “ The law of vicarious liability has been developed – has been “on the move” – in recent times, most notably in the five critical decisions of: E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity the Catholic Child Welfare Society Cox v Ministry of Justice Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets and Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council.” They were benefiting from the service that he was providing and they had the financial resources to compensate the victims (this for organisations using independent contractors will be the really controversial and worrying part of the judgement).īarclays appealed to the English Court of Appeal, but the decision of the High Court was upheld.Īt paragraph 41 of the judgement, Lord Justice Irwin stated: The High Court decided that Barclays should be held liable for the doctor’s actions. The case was first heard in the English High Court. Bates was under the control of Barclays Bank by using the services of Bates, the Bank had created the risk of the victims being exposed to his wrongful acts The medical examinations were carried out on behalf of the Bank and the Bank had the resources to compensate the victims who now had no practical means of obtaining damages from Bates. In fact, the victims themselves did not claim that Bates was an employee of Barclays, but significantly they did argue that its relationship with the doctor was “akin to employment” and that the delictual act was sufficiently closely connected to the employment or quasi-employment. Barclays Bank stated that the doctor was not an employee – he was an independent medical practitioner paid by the Bank to carry out a service as and when required.īarclays Bank argued that on these grounds they should not be held liable for the doctor’s wrongful actions.
BARCLAYS BRIDGE BARON PROFESSIONAL
These incidents did not come to light until much later.īy this time, the doctor had died and there was no question of his professional indemnity insurance or his estate paying out compensation to his victims. The doctor was accused of sexually assaulting 126 people during examinations carried out between 19. These examinations were carried out by Bates at his consulting room located at his private address.
![barclays bridge baron barclays bridge baron](http://www.greatgameproducts.com/image/cache/data/basicConv-170x170.jpg)
This judgement overturns the Court of Appeal’s judgement of 2018 (see Barclays Bank PLC v Various Claimants EWCA Civ 1670).īarclays Bank hired a doctor, Gordon Bates, to carry out medical examinations of members of its staff and applicants for employment at the Bank. Today, the UK Supreme Court has decided, in a unanimous judgement, that Barclays Bank PLC is not liable for the wrongful and criminal actions of an independent contractor (a medical doctor) that it engaged over a number of decades – see Barclays Bank PLC v Various Claimants UKSC 13.