Close connection test Definition

GLOSSARY

Published by a UU��ֱ�� PI & Clinical Negligence expert

What does Close connection test mean?

to be applied to determine whether an employer should be held vicariously liable for an employee’s unauthorised, intentional wrong.

View the related practice notes about Close connection test

Equality Act 2010—discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities

Equality Act 2010—discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities This Practice Note summarises the law and provides practical guidance to service providers in respect of their obligations to provide goods, services and facilities to their customers in a non-discriminatory way under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). It explains the protected characteristics under EqA 2010 and gives practical examples of the forms of direct discrimination, discrimination by association, discrimination by perception, indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation and discrimination arising from a disability, and examples of what can be done to avoid discrimination. It also examines enforcement and remedies relating to EqA 2010 claims and its territorial scope. See also: Compliance with the Equality Act 2010 by service providers—checklist. For information on the application of EqA 2010 in the context of employment relationships, see Practice Note: Liability of employers and employees under the Equality Act 2010. Protected characteristics EqA 2010 ensures that people are treated equally regardless of the characteristics which they might have. In relation to...

Liability of employers for the acts of their employees and others

Liability of employers for the acts of their employees and others This Practice Note considers the test for an employer’s vicarious liability in tort, which arises from certain legal relationships and in relation to certain acts. It also considers liability in ‘relationships akin to employment’ and the circumstances in which more than one employer may be vicariously liable (dual vicarious liability). It examines the ‘close connection test’, which establishes the required connection between the relationship and the wrongful act, re-considered by the Supreme Court in Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v BXB. It sets out the position in relation to liability for the acts of independent contractors and goes on to outline when an employer may be liable for the torts of another person’s employees and where liability to third persons regarding contracts (express and ostensible agency) may arise. This Practice Note also outlines liability for breach of confidence and privacy and breach of data protection obligations, vicarious liability for statutory torts and...

Discover our 22 Practice Notes on Close connection test

A attacks B and causes B to sustain serious physical injuries. In terms of the civil cause(s) of action available, would the claimant’s claim be for damages for personal injury or alternatively damages in the tort of battery? Would there be any other civil remedies? Surely, a personal injury claim essentially is founded in the tort of negligence but A has not been negligent.

A attacks B and causes B to sustain serious physical injuries. In terms of the civil cause(s) of action available, would the claimant’s claim be for damages for personal injury or alternatively damages in the tort of battery? Would there be any other civil remedies? Surely, a personal injury claim essentially is founded in the tort of negligence but A has not been negligent. The issue here is between ‘a claim for personal injuries’, and ‘a claim in negligence or in battery’, which is itself a confusion between a form of damage (and its remedies) on the one hand, and a cause of action on the other. ‘Personal injury’ is not a tort—it is a sort of damage resulting from a tort, which gives rise to a legal right to a remedy. It is to be contrasted with other physical damage—or example, to property, and other forms of tortious interference with a person’s rights (for example, the damage to one’s reputation that results from the tort of...

Is conduct of a non-employee minority shareholder towards a company director capable of amounting to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and/or the constructive dismissal of the company director?

Is conduct of a non-employee minority shareholder towards a company director capable of amounting to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and/or the constructive dismissal of the company director? A person appointed as a director of a company is an office-holder and is not, by that appointment alone, also an employee of the company. A director may however enter a service agreement with the company and thereby become its employee as well as a director of it. See Practice Note: Office-holders. A service agreement will set out the parties to the contract and record the terms and conditions of the director’s employment. See, for example, Precedent: Executive service agreement. For the purposes of this Q&A, it is assumed that the director was also an employee of the company. The termination of an employment contract by the employee will constitute a dismissal if he or she is entitled to terminate it because of the employer's conduct. This is colloquially known as a 'constructive...

See the 5 Q&As about Close connection test

Employment weekly highlights—7 September 2023

This edition of Employment weekly highlights include: (1) new regulations amending and revoking certain pieces of UK secondary legislation and pieces of retained EU legislation, (2) an update from the Department for Business and Trade on its retained EU law dashboard, (3) a new AI task force announced by the Trades Union Congress as part of its call for new legislation safeguarding workers’ rights, (4) a Court of Appeal judgment on whether a school was vicariously liable for the actions of a work placement student, (5) the new pay advisory notice 02/2023 from NHS Employers on sick pay in Wales, (6) an employment tribunal decision that an insurer discriminated against a menopausal worker, (7) analysis by Simon Kerr-Davis and Kloe Halls of Linklaters LLP of new research on the impact of motherhood on the pay disparities between different ethnic groups, (8) analysis by Tom Heys, Síobra Rush and David Lorimer of Lewis Silkin of the Pay Transparency Directive, which will create new gender pay gap reporting obligations throughout the EU,...

Arbitration weekly highlights—10 August 2023

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of two cases involving a challenge to an arbitration award on the grounds of public policy and challenge to an enforcement order by Nigeria in England & Wales, coverage of arbitration-related decisions from Belgium, Brazil, France, the Netherlands, Vietnam, Canada, and Portugal, including a discussion by experts on the impact of AI on international arbitration; the publication of a review of Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) decisions; and updates from the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) and Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb), the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR), and the Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit e.V. (DIS). All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

Read the latest 33 News articles on Close connection test

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"We constantly have to look at our own supply chain and choose the best value and quality-focused solutions for our offices. That was really the genesis of our switch to UU��ֱ��."

Harper Mcleod

Access all documents on Close connection test

GET ACCESS NOW

Top

Trial

UU��ֱ��

GLOSSARY