Nicholas Fewtrell successful in defending Manchester City Football Club
TVZ & ors v Manchester City Football Club [2022] EWHC 7 (QB).
The High Court (Johnson J) handed down a judgment on 10 January 2022 after a seven-week trial of eight claims against Manchester City Football Club (âMCFCâ) arising out of serious sexual abuse by a junior football coach, Barry Bennell, in the early 1980s. Nicholas Fewtrell (led by Michael Kent QC) acted for the Defendant Club and its insurers on the instructions of Keoghâs LLP (Ian Carroll). The issue was whether the Club were vicariously liable for Bennellâs assaults. It was alleged that during the relevant period Bennell was employed by, or in a relationship akin to employment with, the Club as a âscoutâ and junior coach. There was also a question whether the claimants should be allowed to proceed out of time under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The judge held in favour of the defendant on all those issues. He refused permission under section 33 in all eight cases. He concluded that the defendant would be significantly prejudiced on the issues of vicarious liability given the delay of some 27 years in bringing the claims, and it would not be fair and just to expect MCFC to meet them even though each of the claimants had a good explanation for the delay in issuing proceedings. In this respect he noted the agreement of psychiatric expert witnesses that such delay creates real problems of âreattributionâ and âconfirmation biasâ.
Johnson J also held that, on the evidence that was available and adduced before him, in any event the claims failed: that evidence did not establish that Bennell was ever employed by MCFC or that, during the relevant period, he was in a role âakin to employmentâ (so as to engage the extended âstage 1â test for vicarious liability); further he concluded that in any event the abuse (most of which took place in Bennellâs own home or on trips organised by him) could not be regarded as satisfying the second stage of the test of vicarious liability- he held that the assaults took place in circumstances not closely connected to the duties or functions which, on the claimantsâ case, the relationship gave rise to.
The judge therefore applied the principles now clarified in two Supreme Court cases from 2020: Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13; [2020] AC 973 and Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12; [2020] AC 989 which had already been applied to a similar case of a football scout/youth coach in DSN v Blackpool FC [2021] EWCA Civ 1352 (in which Michael Kent QC also acted for the Defendant who succeeded on appeal). The âakin to employmentâ extension satisfying stage I of the test still requires a relationship which closely matches that of the conventional employment relationship and it is not enough that such relationship gave rise to the opportunity to commit assaults which would not otherwise have been possibleâ the âemployerâ must still have entrusted the claimant to the care of the âemployeeâ in circumstances which gave rise to the risk of such assaults being committed: the ordinary duties of a football scout or coach did not involve providing accommodation for the players.
Nicholas Fewtrell, led by Michael Kent QC, acted for the successful Defendant, instructed by Ian Carroll, Keoghs LLP.
The judgment can be found here.
Also Recently
-
Susan Grocott KC appears in front of the Lords Public Service Committee as Co-Chair of the Bar Council legal Services committee
Today, Wednesday 23 October, the House of Lords Public Services Committee will hear from senior officials at the Bar CouncilâŚ
Oct 23
-
Michael Hayton KC receives glowing praise in the recent publications of Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners
Michael Hayton KC, our Head of Chambers, received glowing praise in the recent publications of Legal 500 and Chambers andâŚ
Oct 21