Morrisons loses court fight after driver is assaulted by petrol station staff

Ahmed Mohamud - who was assaulted in Small Heath, Birmingham - argued that Bradford-based Morrisons should be held responsible for the actions of an employee.

Morrisons disputed the claim - and won fights in lower courts, including the Court of Appeal.

But the Supreme Court has ruled against Morrisons.

A panel of five Supreme Court justices analysed evidence at a hearing in London in October and delivered a ruling on Wednesday.

Supreme Court officials said Mr Mohamud had died following the launch of the litigation - and a third party had continued the claim in his name.

Detail of the case had emerged in a ruling by Court of Appeal judges in early 2014.

Judges heard that Mr Mohamud was assaulted in 2008.

They were told that he checked his tyre pressure, then asked kiosk assistant Amjid Khan if it was possible to print documents he had on a USB stick.

Khan was abusive, used racist language and then followed Mr Mohamud on to the station forecourt and punched and kicked him.

Mr Mohamud argued that the assistant should be regarded as ‘’wearing the badge’’ of Morrisons and ‘’representing its brand standards’’.

But three appeal judges ruled that Morrisons could not be fixed with ‘’vicarious liability’’ for Khan’s assault.

One appeal judge, Lord Justice Christopher Clarke, said: ‘’If the question was simply whether it would be fair and just for Morrisons to be required to compensate Mr Mohamud for the injuries that he suffered, there would be strong grounds for saying that they should.’’

He added: ‘’That is not, however, the test. The question is whether the connection between the assault and the employment was sufficiently close to make it fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable. The fact that Mr Khan’s job included interaction with the public does not, by itself, provide that connection.’’

But Supreme Court justices disagreed with that analysis.

They said it was wrong to “to regard Mr Khan as having metaphorically taken off his uniform the moment he stepped out from behind the counter”.

And they said when Khan followed Mr Mohamud to his car and told him “not to come back to the petrol station” he had been giving an “order” and “purporting to act about his employer’s business”.

Specialist employment lawyers said the ruling was significant.

Nicholas Le Riche, a partner at law firm Bircham Dyson Bell, said: “Employers should be warned that this decision has potentially widened the scope by which organisations can be responsible for their employees’ actions.

“The Supreme Court has ruled today that, because the assault followed Mr Khan responding to an inquiry made by Mr Mohamud, which was consistent with the role Morrisons had employed him to do, and as he had directed Mr Mohamud to keep away from the petrol station, there was enough of a connection between his job and the subsequent attack to make his employer responsible for his actions.

“Importantly, the Supreme Court also added that the motive for Mr Khan’s attack was irrelevant in deciding whether Morrisons had liability.”

Chris Weaver, of law firm Payne Hicks Beach, said: “This is a significant judgment by the Supreme Court, but the law of vicarious liability has not changed and I do not see this opening the floodgates for further claims against employers.

“It remains the case that there must be a sufficiently close connection between an employee’s wrongdoing and the employment such that it is fair to hold the employer liable.

“In this case, the Supreme Court held that there was and Morrisons was held liable for the acts of its employee. But the question will turn on the particular facts of any given case.”