Lords ruling could trigger new claims from bullied staff

The decision is based on anti-stalking legislation which was used by an NHS employee to hold his employer responsible for a superior's treatment of him.

The law in question is 1997's Protection from Harassment Act. The Act does not define harassment, which has enabled courts to permit it to mean tabloid newspaper campaigns and the behaviour of animal rights activists.

The claim of William Majrowski was originally summarily struck out by the Central London County Court by Judge Collins. "He held that the 1997 Act was not designed to create another level of liability in employment law. Employees are already adequately protected by the common law," said this week's judgment. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision.

The House of Lords decided that the Act covers the behaviour of employees at work even when the employer has not caused or failed to prevent the offending behaviour. Those employers now have vicarious liability for the acts of employees.

Previously employees had to prove that the employer was negligent in not stopping bullying taking place and that it had caused them psychological damage. The new ruling means that companies can be sued even if the company can not be expected to have known about the bullying.

"The decision has serious implications for employers as it gives employees who are bullied or harassed at work a further basis on which to claim compensation from their employers," said Louise Donaldson, a senior associate specialising in employment law at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM.

"Moreover, some of the existing limitations and defences will not be available. For example, an employer has a defence under existing discrimination legislation if it can show that it took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent discriminatory harassment occurring – this defence was recently made out where an employer had implemented an effective harassment policy. This would not help an employer facing a claim that it was vicariously liable for an employee's harassment under the Act," said Donaldson.

Majrowski worked for Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust in London and claimed that his superior, Sandra Freeman, was rude and abusive to him in front of colleagues. Majrowski, who is gay, claimed that the abuse was fuelled by homophobia.

The new ruling will open employers to new cases. "It will be necessary to show that an offence under the Act has been committed – this involves showing a course of conduct, defined as conduct on at least two occasions, by an employee amounting to harassment, so a single act will not be sufficient," said Donaldson. "It is also necessary to show a sufficient connection between the harassment and the employment if the employer is to be vicariously liable. However this is widely construed and any bullying or harassment taking place at work will almost certainly be covered."