161:
the very act he did. The reason for this lies in the legal policy underlying vicarious liability. The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risks to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged.
165:
carry on businesses, that sometimes their agents may exceed the bounds of their authority or even defy express instructions. It is fair to allocate risk of losses thus arising to the businesses rather than leave those wronged with the sole remedy, of doubtful value, against the individual employee who committed the wrong. To this end, the law has given the concept of 'ordinary course of employment' an extended scope.
157:
say, Mr
Amhurst had no authority from his partners to conduct himself in this manner. Nor is there any question of conduct of this nature being part of the ordinary course of the business of the Amhurst firm. Mr Amhurst had authority to draft commercial agreements. He had no authority to draft a commercial agreement for the dishonest purpose of furthering a criminal conspiracy.
164:
22. This policy reason dictates that liability for agents should not be strictly confined to acts done with the employer's authority. Negligence can be expected to occur from time to time. Everyone makes mistakes at times. Additionally, it is a fact of life, and therefore to be expected by those who
160:
21. However, this latter fact does not of itself mean that the firm is exempt from liability for his wrongful conduct. Whether an act or omission was done in the ordinary course of a firm's business cannot be decided simply by considering whether the partner was authorised by his co-partners to do
78:
Salaam's solicitors were seeking contribution for damages because of their former client. Mr Salaam had defrauded Dubai
Aluminium Co Ltd. Mr Salaam's solicitors were Amhurst Brown Martin & Nicholson, and they had drafted documents for him. Amhurst's had been sued and had settled a $ 10m claim.
156:
20. Take the present case. The essence of the claim advanced by Dubai
Aluminium against Mr Amhurst is that he and Mr Salaam engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud Dubai Aluminium. Mr Amhurst drafted the consultancy agreement and other agreements in furtherance of this conspiracy. Needless to
145:
had been wrong to take account of the firm's innocence when assessing Mr Salaam's contribution for a settlement. Given that Mr Salaam still possessed the proceeds of fraud it was equitable for him to pay the surplus for the firm's $ 10m liability.
176:
he said that the claim could be based on dishonesty, like for liability in assisting breach of trust. At the same time it could ‘be based simply on the receipt, treating it as a restitutionary claim independent of any wrongdoing.’
134:
held that
Amhurst's was entitled to a contribution (which amounted to indemnity) from Mr Salaam. The 1890 Act was not restricted to tortious wrongs, and Mr Amhurst's actions were in the ordinary course of the business
118:
dissented. Mr Salaam argued that wrongful acts that a partnership was vicariously liable for only extended to common law torts, not equitable wrongs like dishonest participation in a breach of trust.
363:
112:, held that the firm was not vicariously liable for the dishonest acts of Mr Salaam, and so was not entitled to a contribution from Mr Salaam for settling the claim by Dubai Aluminium.
29:
253:
347:
131:
224:
80:
101:
180:
305:
413:
119:
319:
267:
217:
192:
83:. This required showing that Amhurst's was liable for wrongful acts by Mr Anthony Amhurst, under the
293:
137:
210:
115:
84:
8:
281:
67:
323:
376:
309:
271:
367:
353:
337:
63:
39:
407:
241:
149:
173:
169:
142:
202:
186:
152:
gave the first judgment and said the following on vicarious liability:
109:
105:
70:
case, concerning also breach of trust and dishonest assistance.
79:
Then, they sought contribution from Mr Salaam under the
141:). So the firm was jointly liable for the damage, and
405:
218:
195:agreed with Lord Nicholls and Lord Millett.
255:Belmont Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)
225:
211:
232:
349:Criterion Properties plc v Stratford LLC
364:Arthur v AG of Turks and Caicos Islands
81:Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
406:
206:
13:
306:El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc
183:gave a short concurring judgment.
95:
14:
425:
125:
334:Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam
172:gave a concurring judgment. In
60:Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam
21:Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam
392:
320:BCCI (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele
1:
7:
268:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson
198:
189:agreed with Lord Nicholls.
90:
10:
430:
122:acted for the solicitors.
374:
360:
344:
330:
316:
302:
290:
278:
264:
250:
245:(1873-74) LR 9 Ch App 244
238:
51:
46:
35:
25:
20:
386:
294:Baden v Societe Generale
138:Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
73:
414:English trusts case law
167:
233:Knowing receipt cases
154:
120:Jonathan Sumption QC
100:The majority of the
85:Partnership Act 1890
68:vicarious liability
52:Vicarious Liability
377:English trusts law
383:
382:
56:
55:
421:
399:
396:
350:
256:
227:
220:
213:
204:
203:
18:
17:
429:
428:
424:
423:
422:
420:
419:
418:
404:
403:
402:
397:
393:
389:
384:
379:
370:
356:
348:
340:
326:
312:
298:
286:
282:Re Montagu’s ST
274:
260:
254:
246:
234:
231:
201:
128:
102:Court of Appeal
98:
96:Court of Appeal
93:
76:
12:
11:
5:
427:
417:
416:
401:
400:
390:
388:
385:
381:
380:
375:
372:
371:
361:
358:
357:
345:
342:
341:
331:
328:
327:
317:
314:
313:
303:
300:
299:
291:
288:
287:
279:
276:
275:
265:
262:
261:
251:
248:
247:
239:
236:
235:
230:
229:
222:
215:
207:
200:
197:
132:House of Lords
127:
126:House of Lords
124:
97:
94:
92:
89:
75:
72:
66:is an English
54:
53:
49:
48:
44:
43:
37:
33:
32:
30:House of Lords
27:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
426:
415:
412:
411:
409:
395:
391:
378:
373:
369:
366:
365:
359:
355:
352:
351:
343:
339:
336:
335:
329:
325:
322:
321:
315:
311:
308:
307:
301:
296:
295:
289:
284:
283:
277:
273:
270:
269:
263:
258:
257:
249:
244:
243:
242:Barnes v Addy
237:
228:
223:
221:
216:
214:
209:
208:
205:
196:
194:
190:
188:
184:
182:
181:Lord Hobhouse
178:
175:
171:
166:
162:
158:
153:
151:
150:Lord Nicholls
147:
144:
140:
139:
133:
123:
121:
117:
113:
111:
107:
103:
88:
86:
82:
71:
69:
65:
62:
61:
50:
45:
41:
38:
34:
31:
28:
24:
19:
16:
394:
362:
346:
333:
332:
324:EWCA Civ 502
318:
304:
292:
280:
266:
259:1 All ER 393
252:
240:
191:
185:
179:
174:obiter dicta
170:Lord Millett
168:
163:
159:
155:
148:
136:
129:
114:
99:
87:section 10.
77:
59:
58:
57:
15:
193:Lord Hutton
42:, 2 AC 366
310:EWCA Civ 4
272:EWCA Civ 2
187:Lord Slynn
297:1 WLR 509
110:Aldous LJ
36:Citations
408:Category
199:See also
116:Turner J
106:Evans LJ
91:Judgment
47:Keywords
368:UKPC 30
354:UKHL 28
338:UKHL 48
64:UKHL 48
40:UKHL 48
398:QB 113
285:Ch 264
387:Notes
143:Rix J
74:Facts
26:Court
130:The
108:and
410::
104:,
226:e
219:t
212:v
135:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.