T v North Yorkshire County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 1998 |
| Date | 14 July 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Chadwick
Employment - sexual abuse of pupil by teacher - council not vicariously liable
Where a teacher sexually abused a mentally disabled schoolboy entrusted to his care, that did not amount to the performance of his duties in an unauthorised manner. It was an independent act outside the course of employment and therefore the local authority was not vicariously liable for the offences of the teacher.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment, allowing the appeal of North Yorkshire County Council from the order made by Judge Spittle in Darlington County Court, on a preliminary issue, that the council was capable of being vicariously liable for indecent assault committed by the teacher. After a police investigation, the teacher was tried and convicted of seven counts of indecent assault on pupils not including the plaintiff.
Mr Nigel Baker, QC and Mr Anesh Pema for the council; Mr Simon Hawkesworth, QC and Mr Mark Grenyer for T.
LORD JUSTICE BUTLER-SLOSS said that the plaintiff, T, suing by his mother, suffered from epilepsy and mental handicap and had attended a special needs school.
In May 1991 he went on a school trip to Spain and as he required nocturnal supervision it was arranged that he would share a room with the deputy headmaster, Michael Stevens. The plaintiff alleged that during the visit he was subjected to sexual assaults by the deputy headmaster which caused serious psychological injury.
An action was brought against the council alleging that as employers of the deputy headmaster, they were vicariously liable for his criminal acts. No application was made to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board since the offences took place in Spain.
The judge, in reliance upon Bracebridge Engineering v DarbyUNK ((1990) IRLR 3), held that the deputy headmaster was effectively in loco parentis in respect of the plaintiff with a duty to care for and supervise him. Therefore the deputy head's acts were so connected with his authorised responsibilities that they could be regarded as an improper mode of performing his duties.
In reliance upon the judgments in Jones v Tower Boot Co LtdICR ((1997) ICR 254) and Caledonia Motor Group Ltd v ReidUNK (unreported, November 7, 1996) her Ladyship held that Bracebridge was not an authority upon which the plaintiff could rely as it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Keeffe v Hickey and Others
... ... 1 IR 192 and Crowley v Ireland [1980] IR 102 followed; Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council [1999] LGR 584 approved; Bazley v Curry (1999) ... ...
-
Jalena Vaickuviene And Others V. J. Sainsbury Plc
...sub nom ST v North Yorkshire County Council; T v North Yorkshire County CouncilUNKUNKUNK [1999] LGR 584; [1999] IRLR 98; [1998] ELR 625; 49 BMLR 150; [1998] 32 LS Gaz R 29; 142 Sol Jo LB 218 Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools sub nom Various Claimants v C......