From: Steve Hedley <S.Hedley@ucc.ie>
Sent: 15 June 2026 10:07
To: obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: RE: Privy Council on Vicarious Liability

From: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday 15 June 2026 09:45
To: James Lee <james.lee@kcl.ac.uk>; obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: RE: Privy Council on Vicarious Liability

Dear Colleagues,

Last week's Privy Council decision in Bethel v Attorney General of The Bahamas will be of interest to members as the latest development on the close connection test in vicarious liability - https://jcpc.uk/uploads/jcpc_2024_0085_judgment_a133457ee0.pdf. (It was accepted that the law in The Bahamas is the same as English law on this point).

The case concerned the false imprisonment, assault and battery of the late claimant. She was a Jamaican national detained by police during an immigration raid, but she was in possession of a spousal permit as the wife of a Bahamian. She was interviewed and held at a detention centre and then transferred into the custody of an immigration officer, Bastian, in order to verify her address. He took her in his car with one of his female friends on a variety of errands and then ultimately to his home, where he detained her. She had repeatedly asked if she could go home to her children and she was told 'not yet'. Bastian continued to detain her and raped her twice. He then returned her home the following day.

There were two questions for the Board, first whether Mrs Bethel had been falsely imprisoned, and second whether the defendants (various government departments, but it was held nothing turned on which was to be liable) were vicariously liable for Bastian's wrongdoing. This required examination of the facts in the light of the reasoning of the Supreme Court in BXB v Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

In a joint opinion by Lord Burrows (who gave the judgment in BXB) and Lady Justice Yip, the Board found that the close connection test was 'clearly satisfied' here (at [40]).

This was because Bastian was purportedly exercising his lawful authority for the whole period while he detained her; she was under his control; he owed her a duty of care while detaining her. The Court revisits phrases from previous cases in noting that there was a 'seamless sequence of events' from his initial taking over her custody until he returned her home, and that 'Mr Bastian never took off his "metaphorical uniform" as an immigration officer'.

Of most interest is perhaps the consideration at [47]-[48] where the Board distinguishes the outcome in BXB, where the close connection test was not satisfied, and draws parallels instead with recent cases on vicarious liability for the sexual abuse of children.

Kind regards,

James