Majrowski v Guy’s and St. Thomas’s NHS Trust [2006] 3 WLR 125
Breach of statutory duty – Harassment – Vicarious Liability
Facts
William Majrowski (M) was formerly employed by St Thomas’s NHS Trust (D). M claimed that he had been bullied by his manager (L), which M claimed amounted to harassment under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It was held that D was vicariously liable for the tort committed by L. D appealed.
Issues
The issue in question was whether an employer could be vicariously liable for a course of conduct by one of its employees that amounted to harassment in breach of s.1 of that Act. D claimed that the purpose of the 1997 Act was to protect people against the public order issue of stalkers, which did not apply to the circumstances of the present case in the workplace; and furthermore, that vicarious liability in this case would place an unduly large burden on employers.
Decision/Outcome
An employer can be vicariously liable in damages under section 3 of the 1997 Act for a course of conduct by one of its employees that amounted to harassment in breach of section 1 of that Act. Vicarious liability for damages could be applied to statutory obligations breached by an employee in the course of his employment unless the statute expressly or impliedly indicated otherwise, which the 1997 Act did not. The House of Lords noted that section 10 of the 1997 Act had inserted section 18B to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, through which an employer in Scotland could be held vicariously liable in damages to the victim of harassment in breach of the relevant provision of the 1997 Act. The House of Lords thus noted that Parliament must therefore have intended that the position be the same in England. The appeal was dismissed.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the decision of the House of Lords in Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34. The legal principles described remain good law. The ruling that an employer can be vicariously liable under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for an employee’s harassing conduct carried out in the course of employment has not been reversed or materially qualified by subsequent legislation or appellate authority. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 remains in force in its relevant provisions. Readers should note that later cases, including Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17 and Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1288, have further refined how courts assess what conduct crosses the threshold of harassment under the 1997 Act, and that the general law of vicarious liability has itself been significantly developed by the Supreme Court in cases such as Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc [2020] UKSC 13 and Various Claimants v Morrisons Supermarket plc [2020] UKSC 12. Those developments concern the scope of vicarious liability more broadly and do not undermine the core holding in Majrowski, but students researching vicarious liability should be aware of them.
