JUDGMENT

Lord Toulson: (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Dyson and Lord Reed agree)

[1] Vicarious liability in tort requires, first, a relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer, and secondly, a connection between that relationship and the wrongdoers act or default, such as to make it just that the defendant should be held legally responsible to the claimant for the consequences of the wrongdoers conduct. In this case the wrongdoer was employed by the defendant, and so there is no issue about the first requirement. The issue in the appeal is whether there was sufficient connection between the wrongdoers employment and his conduct towards the claimant to make the defendant legally responsible. By contrast, the case of Cox v. Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, which was heard by the same division of the court at the same time, is concerned with the first requirement. The judgments are separate because the claims and issues are separate, but they are intended to be complementary to each other in their legal analysis. In preparing this judgment I have had the benefit of Lord Reeds judgment in Cox, and I agree fully with his reasoning and conclusion.

[2] The question in