Blog
Why does software ownership matter? Six key legal takeaways for tech businesses
Christopher Perrin
Eurydice Cote and Gareth Weetman (7 Bedford Row Chambers) successfully acted in a personal injury claim for the victim of a sexual offence in the workplace which was won at trial in the Central London County Court. The case was hotly contested but the Judge found that a company was vicariously liable for the actions of a director who carried out the offence.
The Facts
The First Defendant, Mr L, was a dentist and director of the company which owned and ran the dental Practice where he worked and where the offence took place. The Second Defendant was the company itself. The main question for the Judge to resolve was whether or not the company was vicariously liable (legally responsible) for the actions of Mr L who installed a camera in the bathroom at the Practice. The Claimant in the case was a dental hygienist working at the Practice. She had been unknowingly videoed and had seen a video clip of herself after the camera was discovered in the bathroom. She suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result. Criminal proceedings had ensued and a suspended prison sentence had been imposed on Mr L for voyeurism. He did not partake in the civil proceedings brought by the Claimant and default judgement was entered against him. The issue for trial was the liability of the company.
The Legal Test
In terms of proving vicarious liability, it was conceded that Mr L was in a relationship akin to employment with the company. The evidence was that Mr L was an executive director of the company authorised to carry out all the necessary activities in relation to the running of the business. The disputed issue was whether the act of placing the camera covertly in the bathroom was so closely connected to the acts Mr L was authorised to undertake as director that it could be regarded as having been committed by him while acting in the course of his employment.
The Conclusion
The Judge noted that Mr L was the point of contact on all matters for the company. He had full control of the building and all of the records. He was therefore performing both dental activities and exercising executive director functions. The Claimant was only present at the Practice to work and was essentially under Mr L’s control. On balance, the Judge concluded that Mr L’s presence at the Practice allowed him the opportunity to commit the offence and that it was closely connected to his employment and his authorised activities. He installed the camera using his knowledge of the building and his complete access to it. The whole situation arose within his role as director. The offence took place at work and he was wearing his ‘metaphorical uniform’ at the time.
The Judge was clear that it was not because Mr L was practicing as a dentist that the company was vicariously liable for his actions but because he was the executive director with extensive, if not unlimited, authorisation to act on behalf of the company. There was the required close connection between his role as a director, his wide-ranging field of activity and the offence he committed.
£30,000 was awarded in damages to the Claimant for PSLA including an award for aggravated damages. The Claimant was also awarded an amount for loss of earnings and the costs of seeking future psychological therapy.