In this English High Court judgment, the court dealt with the question whether Wetherspoon was vicariously liable for an assault on a customer carried out by what it referred quaintly to as two “door supervisors” employed by Wetherspoon’s contractor, Risk Solutions (RS). 

The terms of the security service agreement between Wetherspoon and RS provided that RS would be responsible for the direction, management and control of its door supervisors. Control would be the sole responsibility of RS which was required to maintain insurance cover for its employees’ actions. 

Wetherspoon could remove door supervisors in the event of a breach of the agreement but did not have a right to hire or fire them. The door supervisors were required to wear a uniform provided by RS identifying them as employees of RS. 

The claim arose in circumstances where a patron was “restrained” by two door supervisors with such stress that he sustained a dislocated hip. The event was described by the trial judge as an “unprovoked and appalling attack, occurring whilst the claimant was walking away from the pub entrance.”

Both the trial and appeal courts were satisfied that the activities of the door supervisors were sufficiently closely connected with their authorised activities to give rise to vicarious liability. Those included maintaining order and managing entry to the premises. The Wetherspoon and RS contract authorised them to perform “the restraint”. 

The appeal court said, however, that considering the characteristics of the relationship between Wetherspoon and RS, both in terms of the contract and how the security services were in fact delivered, showed that RS was a true independent contractor carrying on its own business. 

Any elements of control which Wetherspoon had under the contract were not inconsistent with that independence and were entirely typical of that type of commercial relationship.  Simply because security was integral to the operation of the pub business did not render the door staff employees of Wetherspoon.

The court referred to, and where necessary, distinguished previous authority making it clear that the key consideration is whether the reality of the relationship is that of a true independent contractor or not. Where the third party is a genuine independent contractor, vicarious liability does not arise, RS, but not Wetherspoon were held liable to the claimant.

A similar result would follow on South African principles of vicarious liability, and the law on employer and independent contractor.

An employer, in circumstances where it knows their contractor’s door supervisor is prone to assault patrons but failed to have them removed, may be negligent in that respect and liable in its own right.    

Burger v JD Wetherspoon and Risk Solutions BD Ltd [2025] EWHC