We read with interest the announcement of the judgement in the case involving a group of claimants suing Manchester City Football Club.
This is a judgement that, at first glance, might seem to row back from previous judgements dealing with vicarious liability. Yesterday’s judgement is one that revolves around its own facts. Rather than reduce the prospect of vicarious liability, the issue was not addressed in the sense that the football club did not have dealing with Bennell during the relevant period of abuse for these claimants.
This case does nothing to reduce the creep of vicarious liability as evidenced in the Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59934051