Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13

Barclays required prospective employees and some existing staff to undergo medical examinations. It arranged the examinations with Dr Bates, a self-employed doctor who conducted them at his home, was paid a fee for each report, carried his own medical liability insurance and also worked for other clients. Many years later, numerous women alleged that Dr Bates had sexually assaulted them during the examinations. After his death, they sued Barclays, arguing that the relationship between the bank and doctor was sufficiently akin to employment to make the bank vicariously liable. The High Court and Court of Appeal accepted that argument. Barclays appealed to the Supreme Court, maintaining that Dr Bates had been carrying on an independent business.

Was Dr Bates's relationship with Barclays akin to employment for the purposes of vicarious liability, or was he a true independent contractor whose alleged torts were outside the bank's responsibility?

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Barclays' appeal. Dr Bates was an independent contractor, not an employee or someone in a relationship akin to employment. He maintained his own medical practice, accepted work from several organisations, was paid separately for each examination, could refuse assignments and bore professional responsibility for his work. Barclays requested examinations and supplied a form, but that did not make the doctor part of its business in the legally relevant sense. The factors discussed in cases such as Cox v Ministry of Justice help to identify relationships analogous to employment where classification is doubtful; they do not eliminate the longstanding distinction between employees and independent contractors. Barclays was therefore not vicariously liable for the alleged assaults.

Vicarious liability normally requires employment or a relationship sufficiently analogous to employment. A person carrying on an independent business on their own account remains an independent contractor, and the client is not generally vicariously liable for that person's torts. The classification depends on the substance of the relationship.

The decision corrects an over-expansive reading of the 'akin to employment' cases. It confirms a two-stage inquiry: first identify the relevant relationship, then ask whether the tort was sufficiently connected with the assigned role. Cox remains important where work is integrated into the defendant's enterprise, but it does not make every outsourced activity the client's business. The case should be contrasted with Lister v Hesley Hall on close connection and with WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants, decided the same day, which addressed the second stage of the test.