Office parties can be the event of a year, however the High Court highlights a potential cause for concern.

It recently considered whether a company was ‘vicariously liable’ for a violent attack on an employee by the managing director of a company at a post-Christmas party ‘impromptu drink’.

In Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd, the Christmas party took place followed by an ‘impromptu drink’ which around half of the party guests attended. It was expected that the company would continue paying for the drinks, even though this was not a pre-planned extension.

A work-related conversation took place and ended with the managing director seriously assaulting an employee. As a result, the employee was unable to continue working. He brought a claim against the company on the basis it was ‘vicariously liable’.

The High Court held that the company was not vicariously liable for the managing director’s actions. There was insufficient connection between the incident and the employment and the incident occurred due to the “voluntary and personal choices” of those involved. The courts consider whether the acts or omissions were “so closely connected with [the] employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable”.

This decision is likely to be appealed as the assault had such serious implications for the employee. A slight variation of the facts could change this decision for a business if a similar incident was to occur.

If the attack had occurred at the Christmas party itself, the employer would have been more likely to be vicariously liable.

Alcohol at Christmas festivities may be enough to turn small disagreements or disputes into something more serious. We always recommend that businesses advise employees of the standards of behaviour expected at such events.