Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: March 1, 2011
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 13 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
A recent case (Brinks Global Services Inc and others v Ignox Ltd and others 2010) suggests that the employer can be liable where the employee effectively made the theft during the normal course of duties.
So in a previous case (Heasman v Clarity Clearing Co Ltd 1987) it was held the cleaning company should not be liable for the making of expensive telephone calls by its cleaners when it is another company’s offices. However, if say, a technician has to remove items for a car boot to carry out work and ‘fails’ to put them back then the employer could well find themselves liable. If, however, the employee chose to open a glove box and remove, say, some CDs, and there was no good reason to open it, then the outcome may be different. Clearly it is easier to sue the employer rather than the employee if the latter has no money.
The recommendation is therefore for employers to take extra care when leaving employees in vulnerable situations where temptation is at hand.
