The primary issue in the for mentioned

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Scenario 1
Issue
The primary issue in the given scenario is that whether any kind of remedies may be
availed by Daisy, and whether any probable defenses may be raised by LST.
Rule
The case of Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 101 must be regarded as an important
case in relation to the given scenario. The primary issue in the aforementioned case, which had to
be settled was whether the ‘Ministry of Justice’ [MoJ] can be held accountable for the negligent
actions of the prisoner. The appeal forwarded by MoJ was dismissed by the Supreme Court and
held that the MoJ would be vicariously accountable in relation to the negligent actions of the
prisoner. It was stressed by the court that vicarious liability or accountability cannot be evaded
by technical or methodical arguments in connection to the employment status regarding the
person who performed the actions.
The case of Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 19132 shall be considered
to be a relevant case in relation to the given scenario. In this case, it was said that ‘vicarious
liability’ is involved in those circumstances in which any particular person has committed any
kind of tortious action, when such person was performing the actions on behalf of any other
individual. The main circumstance in which the notion of ‘vicarious liability’ will ascend is that
circumstance where some person is performing actions for an employer.
1 Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.
2 Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913.

BUSINESS LAW2
The case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 223 must be regarded as an important
case in this regard. The question ascended that whether the employers in relation to the warden
can be considered to be vicariously accountable for the intentional sexual abuse committed by
the employee upon school boys, who all were under his care. It was held that vicarious
accountability may ascend due to unsanctioned and intentional transgressions that might be
committed by any employee who was performing actions for the benefit of his own. There
should exist a link between the transgressions and the job in order to render the transgression
within the range of the employment.
In the case of Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 4974, it was
said that three criteria should be fulfilled in order to deliver the employee status. Firstly, the
individual shall be working in lieu of remuneration. Secondly, the work of the individual is being
controlled by the employer. Thirdly, other instances such as working hours, regular payment,
provision of equipment, should be in conformity to the individual being an employee.
Application
Daisy was an individual who was employed in the position of lecturer in the ‘London
School of Talent’. She was involved in an accident where she fell because of an electric cable in
connection to a projector that was left unplugged by the previous lecturer. The accident caused
memory loss of Daisy and she forgot her studies relating to music.
Applying the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 105 in the given scenario, it
may be said that ‘London School of Talent’ would be vicariously accountable in relation to the
negligent actions of the lecturer who negligently left the projector unplugged. It may be said that
3 Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22.
4 Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497.
5 Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.