The Facts:

The Court of Appeal on 18 February 2020 in Haringey London Borough Council v FZO [2020] EWCA Civ 180 upheld a High Court decision that a school WAS vicariously liable for the sexual abuse perpetrated by a teacher against a student for acts perpetrated both at school but also after the claimant left the school.

The claimant sought damages for sexual abuse at the hands of a teacher at Highgate Wood School whilst the claimant was a pupil at the School in in London between 1980-1982 and then again in 1983-84. The claimant alleged that the assaults continued after they had left the school up to 1988.

The claimant issued proceedings against the teacher directly and against the local authority employing the teacher, which it claimed was vicariously liable for his actions. The claimant was successful in the High Court and recovered a substantial damages award of £1.1m for injuries and losses which were held to be a direct result of the abuse. The local authority appealed this decision on the grounds of limitation, consent and, but also on vicarious liability, claiming that the trial judge erred in law by holding the school liable for assaults which occurred after the claimant had left the school.

The Court of Appeal:

In considering the issue of vicarious liability, the judge at first instance applied the two stage test emerging from the decisions of the UK Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society and others [2012] UKSC 56 and Mohammed v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11. This test provides that for vicarious liability to arise there must be:

1.a relationship between the parties capable of giving rise to vicarious liability, such as employment, throughout the relevant period;

and

2.a sufficient connection between the act or omission of one party and the relationship between the parties.

On appeal, the school claimed that the second limb of the test had not been met in relation to the assaults that occurred after the claimant left the school in 1984. The Court of Appeal did not agree with this.

Taking an expansive approach towards the ‘close connection’ criteria, the judge held that while each non-consensual sexual act committed may have been a separate tort, each of the incidents of abuse (including those which took place after the claimant left school), was founded upon an abuse of the position of trust which had been created whilst the claimant was a pupil at the school.

Therefore, there was a sufficiently close connection between the school and the subsequent abusive acts, concluding that the local authority was vicarious liable for both the incidents which occurred at school AND after the claimant left the school.

The Conclusion:

This finding of the Court of Appeal in Haringey may have set precedent for this who were victim to abuse both whilst in a setting a duty of care was owed, but also after if it can be argued that that the initial setting facilitated the later abuse.