Vicarious Liability and Self-Employed Fleets: Why Business Owners Need to Understand the Risk
- William Slivinsky
- Jun 14
- 11 min read
“The law of vicarious liability is on the move.”
That is how Lady Hale opened the Supreme Court judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, quoting Lord Phillips in the earlier Christian Brothers case.
For business owners, that sentence matters.
Vicarious liability used to be understood mainly through the traditional employer and employee relationship. If an employee committed a tort in the course of employment, the employer could be liable.
But the modern law has moved beyond that simple category.
The court may now ask, and often does ask, whether a relationship, although not formal employment, is sufficiently close to employment — or “akin to employment” — to justify making the business legally responsible for the wrongful act of another person.
That does not mean every self-employed contractor creates vicarious liability risk.
Barclays is important because the Supreme Court confirmed the limit: a business is not normally liable for the torts of a genuinely independent contractor who is carrying on business on their own account.
But where a business relies on a self-employed fleet that performs its core work, follows its systems, operates under its instructions, and is presented to customers as part of the business, the risk is different.
The legal question is not simply: “Does the contract call the person self-employed?”
The better question is: “Is this person genuinely running an independent business, or are they carrying out work as part of our business?”
That is why business owners relying on self-employed drivers, couriers, installers, engineers, contractors, or field operatives need to understand vicarious liability before a claim is made.
If your business needs advice on how to create a proper legal structure for self-employed workers, contractors, or fleet arrangements, contact us here:
What is vicarious liability?
Vicarious liability is the legal principle that one person or business may be held responsible for the wrongful act of another.
The classic example is an employer being liable for the torts of an employee committed in the course of employment.
For example, if an employee causes injury, damage, or loss while carrying out their work, the employer may be legally responsible, even if the employer did not personally commit the wrongful act.
The reason is practical and legal.
The employee is carrying out work for the employer. The work is part of the employer’s business. The employer benefits from that work. The employer usually has greater ability to insure against the risk. The employer also creates or controls the system in which the risk arises.
But the modern law does not stop at formal employment.
In some cases, the court may find that a non-employee relationship is sufficiently close to employment to justify vicarious liability.
That is where the phrase “akin to employment” becomes important.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Barclays?
In Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, the Supreme Court considered whether Barclays Bank could be vicariously liable for alleged sexual assaults committed by Dr Bates during medical examinations carried out for prospective employees of the bank.
Dr Bates was not employed by Barclays.
He was a doctor with his own medical practice. He carried out medical examinations for Barclays, but Barclays was only one of his clients. He had a wider portfolio of work, including work for other organisations and patients.
The Supreme Court held that Barclays was not vicariously liable.
The reason was not simply that the contract said he was independent. The reason was that, viewed objectively, Dr Bates was carrying on business on his own account.
That is the key distinction for business owners.
A genuinely independent contractor is different from someone who is described as self-employed but, in reality, works as part of the business’s own operation.
The key question: independent business or akin to employment?
The central question is whether the person who committed the wrongful act was:
carrying on business on their own account, or in a relationship sufficiently close to employment with the defendant business.
This is not the same as asking whether the person is an employee for tax purposes.
It is also not exactly the same as asking whether the person is a limb (b) worker under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Those questions may be relevant in some cases, but vicarious liability has its own legal purpose.
The question is whether it is fair, just and reasonable to make the business legally responsible for the wrongful act because of the nature of the relationship and the connection between the work and the risk.
For business owners, the important point is this:
A self-employed label does not automatically remove vicarious liability risk.
The court may look at how the relationship worked in practice.
Why this matters for businesses using self-employed fleets
Many businesses rely on self-employed fleets.
This may include:
delivery drivers;
couriers;
van drivers;
HGV drivers;
installers;
repair workers;
mobile engineers;
construction operatives;
cleaning teams;
field sales representatives;
subcontracted labour teams.
This can be commercially attractive. A self-employed fleet may appear flexible, cheaper, and easier to manage than a fully employed workforce.
But the structure must be real.
If the business calls people self-employed but controls their work like employees, presents them to customers as part of the business, gives them the core work of the business, and creates the system in which the risk arises, the business may still face liability.
The risk is not limited to employment law.
It may also include tort and vicarious liability risk.
The Christian Brothers policy factors
In Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56, commonly known as the Christian Brothers case, Lord Phillips identified policy reasons that usually make it fair, just and reasonable to impose vicarious liability on an employer for the acts of an employee.
Those reasons included that:
the employer is more likely to have the means and insurance to compensate the victim;
the wrongdoing is committed during activity carried out on behalf of the employer;
the activity is likely to be part of the employer’s business;
the employer created the risk by assigning the work to the person; and
the person doing the work is, to some degree, under the employer’s control.
These factors matter because they explain the commercial logic behind vicarious liability.
The more a business organises, controls, benefits from, and presents the work as its own, the more difficult it may be to argue that the worker was simply an independent outside contractor.
However, these factors are not a simple checklist.
The court looks at the real relationship.
What factors will the court consider?
The cases show that the court may consider several practical factors.
No single factor is decisive. The court looks at the full picture.
Factor | Why it matters for business owners |
Was the activity carried out on behalf of the business? | If the worker was doing work for the business, rather than providing a separate external service, the relationship may look closer to employment. |
Was the activity part of the business’s ordinary operations? | If the worker performs the core service sold by the business, the risk of integration is higher. |
Did the business benefit from the work? | If the worker’s activity directly advances the business’s enterprise, this supports the argument that the work was part of the business operation. |
Did the business assign the work or create the risk? | If the business allocated jobs, controlled the system, or placed the worker in the situation where the risk arose, liability risk increases. |
Was there control? | Control does not need to be complete. Even modern employees often work with independence. But some degree of instruction, direction, or supervision may be relevant. |
Was the worker truly running an independent business? | This is often central. A worker with their own clients, pricing, insurance, equipment, and commercial risk is different from someone dependent on one business’s system. |
What was the full reality of the relationship? | The court looks at the detail. Labels, invoices, and contract wording matter, but they may not be decisive. |
The practical question for a business owner is therefore not only: “Have we called them self-employed?”
It is: “Can we prove that they are genuinely operating an independent business?”
Barclays confirmed the limit
Barclays is important because it did not impose liability.
The Supreme Court made clear that the law has not abolished the distinction between employees, relationships akin to employment, and genuine independent contractors.
Dr Bates was not treated as akin to an employee of Barclays because he was carrying on his own independent medical business.
He had his own professional practice. He worked for other clients. Barclays was one client among others. He was not part of Barclays’ business in the way an employee or integrated worker would be.
That is useful for business owners, but only if their own contractor model is genuinely independent.A business cannot simply borrow the result in Barclays if the facts are different.
If a self-employed fleet is commercially dependent on one business, works under its system, carries out its core operations, and is presented as part of that business, the risk analysis changes.
Supported by later and related authorities
The principles discussed in Christian Brothers were developed in later cases such as Cox v Ministry of Justice and Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council, see paragraph 53.
Those cases confirmed that vicarious liability may arise outside formal employment where the person’s activities are integrated into the defendant’s enterprise and carried out for its benefit.
But Barclays confirmed the limit.
The law has moved, but it has not moved so far that every contractor creates vicarious liability risk.
The distinction remains between:
someone who is genuinely carrying on an independent business of their own; and
someone who is not employed in name, but is in reality working as part of the defendant’s business operation.
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60 established that a local authority may be vicariously liable for abuse committed by foster parents. The claimant failed on non-delegable duty, but succeeded on vicarious liability because the foster parents were integrated into the authority’s child-care function.
For business owners, that distinction is critical.
Why self-employed fleet models can be risky
Self-employed fleet models can be risky because they often sit between genuine independence and employment.
For example, a business may call its drivers self-employed, but in practice:
allocate the work to them;
control the routes;
set delivery windows;
require use of a company app;
monitor performance;
impose customer service standards;
require branded clothing, ID, vans, or equipment;
restrict how the work is performed;
prevent realistic substitution;
expect regular availability;
present the drivers to customers as part of the business;
rely on them to deliver the core service sold by the business.
Where those features exist, the business may find it harder to argue that each worker is simply running an independent business.
The risk is not only that the worker may later argue for employment rights.
The risk is also that, if something goes wrong, an injured person may argue that the business should be legally responsible for the wrongful act because the work was being carried out as part of the business’s own enterprise.
Example: delivery fleet risk
Imagine a delivery company uses a fleet of self-employed drivers.
The contracts say the drivers are independent contractors.
But in practice, the company allocates the delivery routes, sets the delivery windows, provides the delivery app, controls customer communications, requires branded presentation, monitors performance, and expects drivers to follow its operational system.
If a driver injures someone while carrying out deliveries, the company may argue that the driver was self-employed.
But the injured person may argue that the driver was carrying out the company’s business, for the company’s benefit, under the company’s system, and was not truly operating an independent business.
That is where vicarious liability risk arises.
The court will look at the reality of the relationship, not just the contractual label.
Example: installer or field engineer risk
A similar issue can arise with installers, repair workers, and field engineers.
A company may describe them as self-employed contractors. But if the company controls customer bookings, sets the work standards, provides the uniform, allocates jobs, requires use of company systems, and presents the worker as part of the company, the relationship may look more integrated.
If the worker causes injury or damage while carrying out the work, the company may face an argument that the worker was not a truly independent contractor.
Again, the key issue is whether the worker was genuinely carrying on their own business, or whether they were carrying out the defendant’s business.
Direct liability is also a risk
Vicarious liability is not the only risk.
A business may also face direct liability if it failed to organise the work safely.
For example, a business may be directly liable if it failed to:
provide a safe system of work;
assess risks properly;
maintain safe equipment;
train or instruct workers properly;
control site safety;
manage vehicle or delivery risks;
respond to known hazards;
supervise dangerous work;
ensure that contractors were competent and insured.
This is important because even if a business avoids vicarious liability, it may still face a direct negligence claim if its own systems created or increased the risk.
A proper legal structure should therefore deal with both issues:
Who is legally responsible for the worker’s acts?
and
Has the business properly managed its own duty of care?
Contracts alone are not enough
A written contract is important.
But it is not enough on its own.
A business may have a contract saying that workers are self-employed, but if the day-to-day working relationship looks different, the contract may not protect the business.
The documents must match the reality.
If the contract says the worker can refuse work, but in practice refusal leads to punishment or loss of future work, the clause may be weak.
If the contract says the worker can send a substitute, but in practice substitution is never allowed or is commercially unrealistic, the clause may be weak.
If the contract says the worker is independent, but the business controls the work like an employer, the label may not carry much weight.
A proper structure should align the legal documents with the actual business model.
What business owners should review
If your business relies on self-employed workers or a self-employed fleet, you should review the structure before a claim arises.
Important questions include:
Are the workers genuinely free to accept or refuse work?
Do they work for other clients?
Can they set or negotiate their own prices?
Do they carry their own insurance?
Do they provide their own tools, vehicles, or equipment?
Can they send a substitute in practice, not just on paper?
Are they presented to customers as independent businesses or as part of your business?
Is the work part of your core business activity?
Who controls the method, timing, route, and system of work?
Who creates the risk that may cause injury or damage?
Are health and safety responsibilities clearly allocated?
Are insurance arrangements adequate?
Are onboarding documents consistent with the contract?
Are managers trained not to undermine the self-employed structure in practice?
The answers to these questions may affect both employment status risk and vicarious liability risk.
Common mistakes businesses make
Business owners often assume that risk is reduced simply because the contract uses the words “self-employed contractor”.
That is a mistake.
Common problems include:
using self-employed contracts but treating workers like employees;
giving workers no real commercial independence;
preventing them from working for others;
controlling their hours, routes, and methods too closely;
requiring branding that makes them look like employees;
relying on substitution clauses that do not work in practice;
failing to check insurance;
failing to separate the contractor’s business from the company’s business;
failing to review health and safety duties;
copying generic contracts that do not match the actual operation.
These mistakes can make the business vulnerable if a claim is made.
The commercial lesson
The lesson for business owners is simple.
Self-employed labour is not risk-free.
A self-employed fleet may reduce some costs and provide flexibility, but it can also create legal exposure if the workers are, in reality, integrated into the business.
The more the business controls the work, benefits from it, presents it as its own, and creates the system in which the risk arises, the greater the risk that vicarious liability arguments may be made.
The safest approach is not to rely on labels.
The safest approach is to build a proper legal structure that reflects the true commercial arrangement.
Need advice on your self-employed fleet or contractor structure?
If your business relies on self-employed workers, contractors, drivers, couriers, installers, engineers, or fleet operatives, you should not wait until a claim is made.
A properly structured arrangement can reduce legal risk, improve clarity, and protect the business.
This may include reviewing your contracts, operational practices, substitution arrangements, insurance, onboarding process, health and safety responsibilities, and the way workers are presented to customers.
If your business needs advice on how to create a proper legal structure for self-employed workers, contractor arrangements, or fleet models, contact us here:
Comments