In Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc, medical examinations were a requirement of the Claimants’ employment, or a condition of a job offer made to applicants. Dr Bates conducted the medical examinations in his consulting room at his home at the request of the Bank and was often referred to as “the Bank’s doctor” or “our doctor”. 126 Claimants are seeking damages against the Bank in respect of sexual assaults by Dr Bates while he was examining them. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court in rejecting the Bank’s argument that it is not liable as Dr Bates was not in a situation akin to employment but was a self-employed, independent contractor. The Court held that the Bank is vicariously liable for any proven assaults committed by Dr Bates because: (a) the assaults were as a result of examinations by Dr Bates on the Bank’s behalf; (b) Dr Bates’ activities were for the benefit of the Bank; (c) the Bank created the risk by requiring the Claimants to attend the examinations; (d) the Bank exerted sufficient control over Dr Bates, including being directional on the questions to be asked; and, (e) the assaults were connected with the relationship between Dr Bates and the Bank – the medicals were the whole purpose of that relationship and that relationship had enabled the abuse to take place.

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented, and judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.