Vicarious liability stage one: independent contractors (Barclays Bank v Various Claimants)

Vicarious liability requires, first, a relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor which is one of employment or sufficiently akin to employment and, second, a close connection between that relationship and the tort. In Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, on similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the employer of an independent contractor is in general not vicariously liable for the contractor's torts. The question is whether the tortfeasor is carrying on his own independent business or is in a relationship akin to employment. Where it is clear that the tortfeasor is carrying on his own independent business, it is not necessary to consider the five incidents identified in the Christian Brothers case. Dr Fenwick had his own practice and other clients, was paid per report, could refuse work and carried his own insurance. He was in business on his own account, so stage one fails and the company is not vicariously liable.

Why A is wrong: Arranging and benefiting from the work of an independent contractor does not make a relationship akin to employment.

Why B is wrong: The Supreme Court in Barclays held that a doctor in this position was not in a relationship akin to employment, despite doing work for the company.

Why C is wrong: Where the tortfeasor is clearly carrying on his own independent business, the five incidents need not be considered.

Why D is wrong: Vicarious liability can extend to deliberate wrongdoing, including sexual abuse, where both stages are satisfied; the claim fails here at stage one.