In WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Various Claimants, Skelton (S), an auditor, had a grudge against Morrisons because of what he perceived to be unfair disciplinary action against him. He copied payroll data relating to 99,998 Morrisons’ employees to a USB stick and then posted their personal details online. S sent a CD containing a copy of the data to three newspapers, who did not publish it, but told Morrisons, who took the website down. The High Court upheld a claim by 5,518 employees that Morrisons was vicariously liable for S’s wrongful conduct and the Court of Appeal agreed, holding that here was an uninterrupted thread that linked his work to the disclosure and so Morrisons was vicariously liable. The Supreme Court disagreed. S was authorised to transmit the payroll data to the auditors. His wrongful disclosure of the data was not so closely connected with that task that it meant he was acting in the course of his employment. An employer is not vicariously liable where the employee was not engaged in furthering his employer’s business but was pursuing a personal vendetta.
This 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 the judgments made in every aspect of the case. 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, we 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.
