Pub chain JD Wetherspoon was not vicariously liable for the actions of its door staff, who were independent contractors rather than employees, the High Court has ruled.

Wetherspoon (JDW) was appealing a decision which had found it liable for injuries caused to customer Stephenus Bernadus Burger when he was restrained at a branch in Guildford by door staff employed by private security company Risk Solutions BG Ltd in August 2018. Burger accused JDW of an ‘attempt to evade liability for the actions of security staff’ through its hiring of contractors. 

Recorder Shepherd, at the Central London County Court, held that JDW was vicariously liable for the actions of the security personnel and awarded damages of £71,308.67.

On appeal, JDW argued private security company Risk Solutions and its employees were true independent contractors providing specialist services pursuant to a contract.

Wetherspoons

Wetherspoons appealed a decision which had found it liable for injuries caused to a customer when he was restrained by door staff

Source: Alamy

Mr Justice Sweeting allowed the appeal, stating that the judge was wrong to find the relationship between the door staff and JD Wetherspoon was ‘akin to employment’. 

‘A policy of engaging a specialist contractor to provide licensed and trained personnel acknowledging the risks involved in dealing with members of the public in situations which might require the use of physical force does not suggest an attempt to evade liability but to minimise risk (including to the public) through a commercial arrangement with a competent supplier’, Sweeting said. 

Factors the recorder relied on such as JDW being responsible for counting hours, control over uniform and JDW’s power to remove staff were actually ‘entirely consistent with a business engaging a specialist independent contractor to perform services on its premises for pragmatic commercial reasons’, Sweeting added. 

‘The contract between Wetherspoons and Risk Solutions was a contract for services, not of service’, the judge ruled. ‘The control that was identified consisted in setting standards for the service which was to be supplied. There was an obvious commercial justification for that, indeed had JDW not done so it would have courted the risk of direct liability by failing to select a competent contractor and identifying standards against which competence could continue to be measured.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.