Analysis of "Can the Supreme Court Halt the Ongoing Expansion of Vicarious Liability? Barclays and Morrison in the UK Supreme Court" Case Study

Analysis of "Can the Supreme Court Halt the Ongoing Expansion of Vicarious Liability? Barclays and Morrison in the UK Supreme Court" Case Study by New Assignment Help

  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24x7 Online Help
  • No AI Generated Content
- +
35% Off
£ 6.69
Estimated Cost
£ 4.35
7 Pages 1743Words

Introduction Of Analysis of "Can the Supreme Court Halt the Ongoing Expansion of Vicarious Liability? Barclays and Morrison in the UK Supreme Court" Assignment

Get free written samples from subject experts and online assignment writing service in UK.

1.0 Summaries of the main point of the article

In this article Paula Giliker has arisen the relationship between Barclays bank and the other various claimants. So first we need to understand that what is Barclays bank basically it is a universal economical service provider which is also occupied merchandise banking, united and investment banking, and financial management. Barclays bank headquarters were situated in London in the year of 1896 and the CEO is C.S.Venkatakrishnan.But a few years ago there was a problem between Barclays bank and the other claimants.

The total claimants are 126 parties in the case (Nolan, 2020). The main defendant is Barclays bank, via substitute guilt of a doctor employed who has since no more. In every other bank Barclays bank has also conducted a medical examination camp with a qualified doctor for all their employees and the company paid a good fee for the examination of their employee. But when these examination was going on that time 126 female employees are claimant that the qualified doctor done a serious sexual assault by the time of examination. After that the examination process was shut down. All the claimant employees are going to another examination by their side and after that examination (Joad, 2020).

The report was provided by the doctor with the bank proforma and the bank logo and the total process is very confidential and the name of the medical report is Barclay’s confidential medical report. But when this kind of thing happened at that time Barclays bank didn’t agree that this kind of thing ever happened here and they didn’t agree with the medical reports.

All the 126 claimants went to the high court and filed their reports and appealed for justice. The high court’s clearly said that the doctor who came for the examination camp was responsible for these activities on behalf of the bank and the doctor was also maintaining the relationship like an employee.

These reports also were sent to the Supreme Court and the case was gone so far. The Supreme Court’s latest decision was effective. In this case it was very much understandable that the doctor had been acting for his own work for the organization because he had very few people and patients including the bank employee so it's very easy to do these kinds of jobs and the bank was also involved in this case but the Barclays bank disagreed with the verdict.

In this case, the Supreme Court was identifying two types of employees one was akin to employee and another was independent contractors. The difference between these two is basically some laws and some contracts like not every laws are apply over the independent contractors but in akin employee they are very much responsible to their jobs and also they make proper relation between the two person for the law if any person was wrong at that time another person make to pay for that fault. So in this case the Supreme Court raised these issues of who is akin to an employee and who are the independent contractors in this case.

Not only that in these cases there were the different policies, doubtful cases, and the relationship test between the company and their employees (Barclay, 2020).

There was another case is arise at that time that is the Morrison’s supermarket vs various claimants. In Morrison’s supermarket has there was also raised the same problem like Barclays bank in these supermarket the employees are also faced some sexual abuses and another employee whose name is Mohamed he is also facing some another problem and they both are went to the supreme courts and appeal for justice. In this first case the Supreme Court verdict is the company has to test their connections who is there close connections and how these kind of things was happened so here the court followed Dubai aluminum principle.

But in the Mohamed case he was not wrong but he was misunderstood by the company. In this summary process all the main points are very important and how Paula Giliker has highlighted this topic it's truly helpful for everyone who reads these articles (Motson, 2021.).

2.0 Central argument made by Paula

In this case the author's argument is very important. Here the author divided these cases into two parts. Author was clearly says that the Supreme Court should slow down and adopt the measured approach. Here Paula Giliker was tell that in the Barclays bank case author support the climate over the bank because in that case one doctor has sexually abuse their patients or clients which is really a unethical and not just unethical its also a crime. Total 126 employee was take the charge against that doctor and after that when that employee going for the another test and when the test reports are came that time it’s proven that what they are saying it’s completely true but the company should not accept this case and when they went to court the supreme court is also mentioned that the doctor for his own work for the organization, and doctor was also maintaining the relation between like an employee.

In the second case the author was supporting the climate over the company because the same things arise where employees are abused by their close or sufficient clients and when they went to the supreme court and placed their reports that time it’s proven that the main culprit is the company and again they didn’t agree with their faults and the Mohamed case there is also Mohamed was not wrong he is misunderstood by someone.

In the final section the author addressed that the both companies have provided clear guidance to the supreme courts and the court shows their concern which is mentioned above. The approach will be two ways which the Supreme Court addressed. First supreme court told that they have to revisit the previous case and seen that what is the problem in akin to employment and the connections and the court examine and resolve the problems in their own way which is more easier and after that court will also resolve their questions and also the uncertainties parts which is highlighted and point up that is also need to be resolved. Secondly author also like the decision of Supreme Court that is non-delegable duties. In the Barclays bank part high court directly says that akin to employment are represent the cases in point (Petrova, 2019). 

3.0 In my opinion over this argument

 As we have seen in this article, both cases are placed in such reputed companies and both companies are more or less involved in these matters and when the truth is coming at that time both companies are denied their role in these matters.

But in my opinion after seen these argument is the author are completely right what she says in her argument the Barclays bank is fully involved in that medical examiner matters and it's also proven that the doctor is maintain his relation with the company which is not right in my opinion doctor is the pillar of our nation and we all are respect them and believe them in past few years when these pandemic was happened at that time doctors are the main person who take cared us but if these kind of things took place in our nations so no one can believes in doctor everyone thinks that all the doctors are same they done the same things they treat their clients or patients like these.

And the Morrison case there is also the company is guilty and they didn’t agree their fault in the case of sexual abuses in that part the the close clients are involved if in the business our close clients are doing these kinds of things with our employees then how we will rise our business and how we will believe our new clients who are coming to help us. And the Mohamed case there is completely misunderstood. He is not wrong on his part, he is misunderstood by someone. Now a days this kind of incident is very common everywhere lots of big companies are doing this kind of things with their employees and many employees are didn’t says anything for the society because in our society if anyone says this kind of things or share this kind of things with others that people thinks that the employee is guilty not that company. 

So I will completely agree with the author's argument and what the author says in her article that is completely true. 

Reference list


Barclay, G., 2022. Necessity and coercion in Scots criminal law: a critical analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow).

Barclay, S.H., 2020. The Historical Origins of Judicial Religious Exemptions. Notre Dame L. Rev.96, p.55.

Hamilton III, H.B., 2018. At the Water's Hedge: International Insider-Trading Enforcement after Morrison. Duke LJ68, p.1003.

Joad, J., 2020. The Limits of Liability: Anglo-American Organisations and Vicarious Liability from the 19th Century to the Present. St Andrews Law Journal1(1), pp.5-15.

Motson, F., 2021. Impractical Jokers: Employers' Liability for'Horseplay'. Professional Negligence37(2), pp.73-84.

Nolan, D., 2020. Reining in Vicarious Liability. Industrial Law Journal49(4), pp.609-625.

Petrova, A., 2019. Cross-Border Scope of Private Cause of Action Under the Commodity Exchange Act, 5 J. Marshall Global Mkt. LJ 58 (2019). John Marshall Global Markets Law Journal5(1), p.4.

Todd, S., 2020. Various Liability on the Move-But Where Should It Stop?. J. Int'l & Comp. L.7, p.1.

35% OFF
Get best price for your work
  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24*7 Online Help

offer valid for limited time only*