Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE TREACY
- THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Employment Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around an assault by a supermarket employee, Mr. Khan, on the Appellant at a supermarket in Birmingham. The trial court dismissed the Appellant's claim that the Respondent supermarket was vicariously liable for the assault. The appeal focused solely on whether the supermarket should be held vicariously liable for its employee's actions. The court applied a two-stage test for vicarious liability, concluding that the connection between Mr. Khan's employment and the assault was insufficient to hold the employer liable. The appeal was dismissed.
Judgment
Lord Justice Treacy:
This Appeal
This appeal is concerned with a single question, namely whether the Respondent supermarket was vicariously liable for an assault committed by an employee upon the Appellant.
The appeal is against a judgment of Mr Recorder Avtar Khangure QC delivered on 7 th November 2012 at the Birmingham Civil Justice Centre. The Recorder dismissed the Appellant’s claim, holding (inter alia) that although the Respondent’s employee had assaulted the Appellant, the Respondent was not vicariously liable for that assault.
The Appellant filed a notice raising various grounds of appeal, essentially of a factual nature. However, at a permission hearing before Sir Stephen Sedley, permission was granted to add a further ground of appeal, namely whether the Recorder erred in law in failing to find that on the facts found by him the Respondent was vicariously liable. Sir Stephen refused permission to appeal on all grounds save for that relating to vicarious liability.
The Facts
On 15 th March 2008 the Appellant visited the Respondent’s supermarket and petrol station premises in Small Heath, Birmingham. There is a kiosk which serves the petrol station which performs the function of a small convenience store. After checking the tyre pressures on his car, the Appellant, who is of Somali descent, entered the kiosk and asked the Respondent’s employee, Amjid Khan, if it was possible to print off some documents which were stored on a USB stick which the Appellant was carrying. Mr Khan responded in abusive fashion, including racist language.
In addition to Khan, there were two other employees present who appear to have joined in the abuse of the Appellant, but who, on the judge’s finding, were not involved in the subsequent violence.
After being abused the Appellant left the kiosk and walked to his vehicle. He was immediately followed by Khan, who opened the front passenger door and partly entered the vehicle. He shouted violent abuse at the Appellant, who told him to get out of his car. At this point the Appellant was punched to the head by Khan. Then when he got out of his car to close the passenger door, he was again attacked by Khan, who punched him twice to the head. Khan then leapt on the Appellant and subjected him to a serious attack involving punches and kicks while the Appellant was curled up on the petrol station forecourt.
The judge found that the Appellant was in no way at fault and had not behaved offensively or aggressively