Pub operator is not vicariously liable for doormen's acts

The case

Burger v Risk Solutions BG Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 804 (25 June 2026)

The facts

The claimant was injured when forcibly restrained  by two doormen outside a Wetherspoon pub. He brought an action against the security company that employed the doormen and Wetherspoons the owner of the pub.  Judgment in default was obtained against the security company. However, it had already entered liquidation and was dissolved.  The action continued against Wetherspoons.

The trial and subsequent appeal

The claimant initially succeeded at trial. The Recorder who heard the case held that that Wetherspoon was vicariously liable. Although the security staff were employed by an independent contractor, the Recorder considered that their relationship with Wetherspoon was sufficiently “akin to employment” applying the principles discussed by the Supreme Court in BXB.  The defendant appealed that decision in relation to vicarious liability and that appeal was successful before the High Court. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

What happened in a nutshell

The claimant’s appeal was unsuccessful.   The Court of Appeal held that the security company that employed the doormen plainly carried on its own independent business. It recruited, employed, trained and managed its own staff, provided security services to clients under commercial contracts and bore the commercial risks of that business. Those features were inconsistent with any suggestion that its employees had become employees, or the equivalent of employees, of Wetherspoon.

The reasons that Wetherspoons wasn’t vicariously liable

The Court identified a number of factors relied upon by the Recorder which did not justify imposing vicarious liability.

Among other things:

• Wetherspoon paid Risk Solutions, not the individual door supervisors.

• The fact that security was integral to running a pub did not alter the legal relationship.

• Requirements about uniform and standards of behaviour were ordinary contractual specifications imposed on an independent contractor.

• Liaison between pub managers and security staff was simply part of the practical operation of the contract.

• The contractual right to ask for a door supervisor to be replaced fell well short of day-to-day managerial control.

Key practice points

This case shows the limits of the principle of vicarious liability.  An occupier of premises, or the operator of a business,  is not necessarily liable for the actions of the employees of independent contractors.

Baroness Hale “made clear that the expansion of vicarious liability to include, at the first stage, whether the relationship was ‘akin to employment’ did not extend to rendering an employer vicariously liable for the torts of ‘true independent contractors’“