Human resources at a click

Employers could be vicariously liable for privacy breaches

office-breakout-room

The recent High Court decision of Axon v Ministry of Defence and News Group Newspapers Ltd suggests that employers can be held vicariously liable for their employees’ breaches of confidence and privacy.

The Claimant was a Commanding Officer in the Royal Navy.  He was relieved from his post and reassigned to a shore based location when the Ministry of Defence (MOD) found him guilty of bullying junior officers.  An employee of the MOD leaked this information to The Sun newspaper who published an article on this.  On discovering this some years later, the Claimant pursued claims for breach of confidence and breach of privacy (Article 8 ECHR) against the MOD asserting that it was vicariously liable for its employee’s acts.

The High Court determined that, on the facts of the case, the Claimant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In reaching this decision it stated that the Claimant was “discharging a very public function, was in charge of a warship, and had, by his offensive conduct, imperilled the fighting effectiveness of his ship”.  Further, whilst the employee had a duty to the Crown and the MOD to refrain from disclosing confidential information to outsiders, she did not owe this duty to the Claimant. Consequently the Claimant’s claims failed.

Chambers and Partners

The Clarkslegal team are commercial and good to work with. They get what our business needs and tell me what I need to hear.

Interestingly, the Judge went on to comment on vicarious liability and concluded that the MOD could have been held liable had the Claimant’s claims been valid.  This was on the basis that the employee’s wrongdoing had a sufficiently close connection to her employment.  The employee’s wrongdoing was based on information obtained during the course of her employment, her employment was the only reason she was privy to that information and she had signed a confidentiality agreement.  The Judge commented that, due to the sensitive information she was privy to, it was appropriate to view her job as including the task to preserve confidentiality.

Although only commented on obiter and, therefore, not binding, the Judge’s comments serve as an important reminder for employers to ensure that all employees are aware of the seriousness of confidentiality and privacy beaches.  An employer may escape the jaws of vicarious liability if it can demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the wrongdoing occurring.  Water tight data protection and privacy policies are, therefore, an essential starting point to minimise the risks of vicarious liability.

Disclaimer This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking professional and legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.
Monica Atwal
Monica Atwal
Managing Partner

Related Articles

Since the UK GDPR came into force in 2018, which was an overhaul in data protection, many employers and organisations...

The UK’s data protection framework is about to undergo its most significant change since the UK GDPR came into force....

On 6 May 2025, the SRA authorised the first law firm providing legal services through artificial intelligence. Garfield.Law will provide...

Related Resources

Confidentiality statement

Confidentiality statement in regards to the monitoring policy. Confidentiality Statement – Monitoring Policy  I agree, save if required by law...

Data subject’s rights factsheet

 This factsheet highlights the right data subjects have under the Data Protection Act 2018. Introduction Data Subjects have a number...

Data protection policy

Policy for data protection. Purpose & Scope We need to collect and use certain types of information about individuals (such...

Human resources at a click