Shelbourne v Cancer Research UK

Factual and Procedural Background

On 7 December 2012, a Christmas party was held at the Cambridge Research Institute of Cancer Research UK (CRUK), a charity conducting cancer research, located at the Li Ka Shing Centre leased from the University of Cambridge. The Genomics Department, led by an organiser referred to as Mr Hadfield, was responsible for the event. The party featured a buffet, oversized games, a ceilidh, and a disco, and was ticket-only, open to staff and their guests.

Mr Hadfield completed a risk assessment focused primarily on preventing access to laboratories during and after the party. Two security staff were present to enforce this restriction. One attendee, a visiting scientist employed by the University but entitled to attend via a security pass, engaged in inappropriate conduct by lifting several women without consent, including the Appellant, who sustained a serious back injury after being dropped.

The Appellant, an animal technician employed at the Institute, brought proceedings against CRUK. The Recorder at Southend County Court held that CRUK was not liable in negligence nor vicariously liable for the visiting scientist's actions. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that the Recorder may have erred in law regarding both negligence and vicarious liability.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether CRUK owed and breached a duty of care to the Appellant in the context of the Christmas party, particularly concerning the risk assessment and supervision regarding alcohol-related behaviour.
2. Whether CRUK was vicariously liable for the actions of the visiting scientist under the modern "close connection" test for vicarious liability, as established in Mohamud v W Morrisons Supermarkets and related authorities.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Christmas party was effectively a "works do" organised for the benefit of CRUK, with staff attending qua staff, thus bringing the party within the scope of employment-related activities.
• The risk assessment was reactive and inadequate, lacking provisions for controlling inappropriate behaviour arising from alcohol consumption, including no signed declarations or clear prohibitions on bringing alcohol from outside.
• Security arrangements were insufficient, and staff were not properly trained to monitor or intervene in inappropriate conduct.
• The visiting scientist's actions were closely connected to his employment because the party authorised intimate physical interactions among employees, making CRUK vicariously liable.
• Relevant case law supports a broad approach to the "field of activities," encompassing attendance at the party and the associated conduct.

Respondent's Arguments

• The party was organised by volunteers and was not a compulsory work event; attendance was by ticket and included guests.
• The Recorder correctly found that CRUK owed a duty of care but did not breach it; the risk assessment and security arrangements were reasonable given the nature of the event and prior absence of incidents.
• The visiting scientist's wrongful conduct was a frolic, unrelated to his employment or duties at CRUK.
• Vicarious liability does not extend to this situation because the assault was not sufficiently connected to the employee's field of activities; attendance at a social event is not part of the job.
• Applying a broad approach to "field of activities" does not remove all boundaries; the case law requires a close connection, which is absent here.
• Imposing liability here would have negative social consequences and discourage the organisation of social events.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first accepted that CRUK owed a duty of care to the Appellant during the Christmas party, applying the principles from Everett regarding foreseeability and proximity. The scope of the duty was carefully considered, with the court emphasizing the flexibility of the duty of care concept and the importance of context. The party was characterised as a members-only event where violence was virtually unheard of, not akin to a nightclub with a high risk of violence. The risk assessment, although limited, was found to be reasonable in light of the lack of prior incidents and the nature of the event. The presence of security staff and volunteer organisers who monitored the event was sufficient to meet the duty of care. The court rejected the Appellant's argument that more extensive measures, such as signed declarations and special training, were required, considering such demands unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence or law.

Regarding vicarious liability, the court applied the two-stage test from Mohamud: identifying the field of activities entrusted to the employee and assessing whether there was a sufficient connection between the employment and the wrongful conduct. The Recorder's factual findings, accepted on appeal, showed that the visiting scientist's employment was confined to laboratory work and that attendance at the party was voluntary and unrelated to his job duties. The wrongful act of lifting and dropping the Appellant was not connected to his employment; it was a personal act during a social event. The court distinguished the present facts from cases like Bellman and Rose v Plenty, where the tortious acts were more closely linked to the employee's role or authority. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the interests of injured parties with wider social implications, concluding that imposing vicarious liability here would extend the concept beyond its proper limits.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISMISSED.

The court upheld the Recorder's judgment that CRUK was not negligent nor vicariously liable for the visiting scientist's actions at the Christmas party. The decision confirms that employers are not automatically liable for torts committed by employees at voluntary social events, particularly where the conduct is not sufficiently connected to the employee's field of activities. The judgment underscores the necessity of a fact-specific and balanced approach to duty of care and vicarious liability, avoiding unreasonable extensions that could deter the organisation of workplace social functions. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts presented.