Iqbal v London Transport Executive [1973] EWCA Civ 3
Employer’s vicarious liability for an employee’s negligent act while performing an unauthorised act.
Facts
A bus conductor, who had been previously prohibited by his employer from driving, disobeyed his employer’s instructions and drove a bus for a short-distance at a garage. In doing so, he hit and injured a fellow employee. The injured person sued the employer for injury caused by a negligent actions of the bus conductor.
Issues
The issue arose as to whether the bus conductor can be held to have been acting within the course and scope of his employment and whether, accordingly, the employer can be held liable for the injury caused to the man due to his negligent acts.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that an employer’s express instructions can effectively aid in defining the sphere of the employee’s course and scope of employment. Thus, as the conductor has been expressly prohibited from driving buses, his action to negligently drive the bus cannot be considered to have been within the course and scope of his employment. Accordingly, the employer was not vicariously liable for the conductor’s negligent actions and the consequent injury sustained by another employee.
Word Count: 199
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Iqbal v London Transport Executive [1973] EWCA Civ 3. The core legal principle described — that an express prohibition by an employer can define the scope of employment for vicarious liability purposes, such that acting in breach of that prohibition takes the employee outside the course of employment — remains good law as a general proposition.
However, readers should be aware that the law of vicarious liability has developed significantly since 1973. In particular, the Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11 refined the test for whether an employee’s act falls within the course of employment, emphasising a ‘close connection’ approach. More recently, the Supreme Court in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 and WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 revisited and in some respects recalibrated these principles. Readers relying on Iqbal for a full understanding of the modern law of vicarious liability should therefore consult these more recent authorities. The outcome in Iqbal itself has not been overruled, but it should be read in the context of this broader and evolving body of case law.
