A May 2025 judgment in the UK high court provides a useful examination of the developments in UK law of vicarious liability for the acts of employees and independent contractors. Vicarious liability is liability imputed to one person for the actions of another over whom they have some control. The developments are similar to those in South Africa. The case related to the assault by members of an independent security company operating as door supervisors for a pub.

According to early court decisions, employers were accountable for employees who were acting within their given authority whether or not for the benefit of the employer. The acts must be performed in the course of employment, and be not only wrongful acts authorised by the employer but also a wrongful and unauthorised way of doing an authorised act. Partly because of claims for sexual abuse of children, the law developed to consider the relationship between the employer and the wrongdoer and the link between the commission of the wrongful act and that relationship. Vicarious liability could arise where the employees actions were not merely an unauthorised mode of performing an authorised act but also where the wrongful act was so closely connected with the employment that it would be just to hold the employer liable. Considerations of fairness necessitated a more expansive interpretation of the ordinary course of employment.

The law expanded to encompass relationships beyond the strict confines of a contract of employment to relationships akin to employment. Despite this, the rule that an employer of a truly independent contractor is generally not liable for the contractor’s wrongdoings has been upheld.

Where, as in this case, there was an independent security contractor but a measure of control over the activities of the security personnel, questions of fact and the contractual relationship were said to be all-important.

The court’s remarks in dismissing the claim against the pub are useful:

“Many businesses engaging independent security firms could be expected to specify requirements regarding attire and hours of work and might reserve the right to request the removal or replacement of specific personnel for good reason, as was the case here. The fact that security is integral to the operation of a pub or that the security staff have to cooperate with other staff does not transform the relationship with an external security provider into one akin to employment; it simply explains why the service is required and how it is necessarily to be provided. The factual findings, when viewed in the context of a contract for specialist security services, do not demonstrate that the security company was not carrying out its own independent business or that the relationship was sufficiently akin to employment to displace the general principle that a company is not vicariously liable for the wrongdoings of an independent contractor. The contract was a contract for services, not of service. The agreement explicitly stated that the security company retained control over its employees, and there was no evidence that the pub had direct control over their actions. The control that was identified constituted in setting standards for the service which was to be supplied. Had the pub not done so it would have courted the risk of direct liability by failing to select a competent contractor and identifying standards against which competence could continue to be measured.”

In the above passage, you can easily substitute a reference, for instance, to a cleaning company. The degree of control and the extent to which potentially harmful obligations can be delegated are all-important.

A look through of previous blogs on vicarious liability will show that there is no consistency, and fairness often seems to override principle.

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