# Vicarious liability: the close connection test

> **Key takeaway:** Two-stage test: (1) employment/akin-to-employment relationship, (2) close connection between that relationship and the wrongful act — furthering the employer's business vs. a 'frolic of one's own'. Leading case: WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Commercial
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-07-21
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Commercial/vicarious-liability-close-connection-test
- **Keywords:** vicarious liability, close connection test, Mohamud, Morrison Supermarkets, employer liability, Dubai Aluminium, Lister v Hesley Hall

## What is this about?

Vicarious liability allows a claimant to hold an employer responsible for a wrong committed by an employee, without needing to prove the employer was itself at fault. The modern test has two stages, and the second — the 'close connection' between the employment and the wrongful act — is where most of the difficulty lies.

## What is the core rule?

The court asks, first, whether there is a relationship between the wrongdoer and the defendant capable of giving rise to vicarious liability (employment, or a relationship 'akin to employment'), and second, whether there is a sufficiently close connection between that relationship and the wrongful act. On the second stage, the touchstone is whether the wrongdoer was, however misguidedly, furthering the employer's business, as opposed to pursuing a purely personal agenda — often described as being on a 'frolic of their own'. A temporal or causal link to employment (the job merely gave the opportunity) is not, by itself, sufficient.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Stage 1: is there an employment relationship, or one akin to it, between the wrongdoer and the defendant?
2. Stage 2: is there a sufficiently close connection between that relationship and the wrongful act?
3. Was the wrongdoer furthering the employer's business (even if in an unauthorised or misguided way)?
4. Or was the wrongdoer acting for purely personal reasons unconnected to the employer's business (a 'frolic of their own')?
5. A temporal/causal link (the job created the opportunity) is not enough on its own to satisfy stage 2

## Which authorities matter?

- **Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11** — Held the employer liable for an employee's unprovoked assault on a customer, on the basis of an unbroken sequence of events connected to the employee's role — but later clarified in Morrison (2020) as narrower than sometimes assumed.
- **WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12** — Current leading authority. Employer not vicariously liable for an employee's deliberate data leak driven by a personal grudge, since the act was not within the employee's authorised field of activities and was not furthering the employer's business. Confirms motive can be relevant where it shows purely personal action, and applies the test from Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam.
- **Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22; Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48** — Foundational authorities establishing and applying the close connection test, expressly endorsed (not replaced) by the 2020 Morrison decision.

## How does this apply in practice?

Start with stage 1 (relationship) before moving to stage 2 (connection) — the two are analytically distinct, and stage 1 issues (e.g. agency workers, volunteers, contractors) can resolve a case before the close connection question is even reached. On stage 2, focus on what the wrongdoer was actually authorised or engaged to do, and whether the wrongful act was a distorted way of doing that job or a separate personal act that merely happened at work.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Treating Mohamud as establishing that an employee's motive is always irrelevant — Morrison (2020) narrows this; motive matters where it shows the act was purely personal
- Assuming any temporal or causal link between the job and the wrongdoing is enough — the courts have expressly rejected this as a standalone test
- Conflating stage 1 (relationship) and stage 2 (connection) into a single question

## When would a practitioner use this?

Relevant when assessing whether an organisation can be held liable for an employee's tort, misconduct, or data breach, particularly where the employee acted outside explicit instructions or for personal motives.

## Quick reference

Two-stage test: (1) employment/akin-to-employment relationship, (2) close connection between that relationship and the wrongful act — furthering the employer's business vs. a 'frolic of one's own'. Leading case: WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*