Decided 12 July 2006 Court House of Lords | End date July 12, 2006 | |
 | ||
Citation(s) [2006] UKHL 34, [2006] ICR 1199 Judge(s) sitting Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Similar Mattis v Pollock, Rose v Plenty, Thoburn v Sunderland City Coun | ||
Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34 is a UK labour law case holding that an employer will be vicariously liable for the harassment of an employee by another.
Contents
Facts
Mr William Majrowski was a gay man, and worked as a clinical auditor co-ordinator. He claimed that his manager, Sandra Freeman bullied and harassed him, in breach of section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He said this made the employer vicariously liable. The judge held there was no cause of action because section 3 created no statutory tort for which an employer could be vicariously liable.
Judgment
The House of Lords held that there was a new statutory tort for harassment in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and it made employers vicariously liable. It was not solely about stalking. This was supported by section 10(1) concerning Scotland. Lord Nicholls emphasised the overlap with European Directives’ common definition of harassment, meaning unwanted conduct violating the dignity of a person. He said the following.
Lord Hope, Lady Hale, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown gave concurring opinions.