X v The Lord Advocate [2025] UKSC 44

X (Appellant) v The Lord Advocate (Respondent)

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uks...

UKSC/2024/0116 - [2025] UKSC 44

The Respondent is the Lord Advocate acting for the Scottish Ministers. The Appellant alleges that, between 18 May and 24 August 2018, she was the victim of four incidents involving assault and/or harassment by a sheriff. These allegations were denied by the sheriff, but in 2024 a Fitness for Office Tribunal ordered the sheriff’s removal from office. For purposes of the present appeal, which concerns a preliminary question of law, the facts alleged by the Appellant are assumed to be true.

On 15 July 2021, the Appellant brought a claim in the Court of Session claiming that the Respondent and the Lord President were vicariously liable for the sheriff’s conduct. The Appellant subsequently amended her case to drop the claim against the Lord President and to add the Advocate General for Scotland as the representative of the Crown. Three preliminary issues arose: (1) who was the proper defendant to the claim, (2) whether the test for vicarious liability was satisfied on the assumed facts, and (3) whether the claims were time-barred. As to the second issue, it was common ground that the test for vicarious liability comprises two stages: first, whether the nature of the relevant relationship was akin that between an employer and employee, and second, whether there was a sufficient connection between the relationship and the wrongdoing.

On 2 March 2023, the Lord Ordinary in the Outer House dismissed the claim and held that (1) the Respondent was the proper defendant, not the Advocate General; (2) the Appellant’s case satisfied the test for vicarious liability, except that her case on incidents 3 and 4 failed to meet the second stage and was therefore bound to fail; and (3) the Appellant’s claims in delict in respect of incidents 1 and 2 were time-barred.

Both parties appealed. On 12 April 2024, the Inner House allowed the Respondent’s appeal and dismissed the Appellant’s case in respect of all four incidents because it was bound to fail at the first stage of the test for vicarious liability. The Appellant now appeals to the UK Supreme Court.

The issue is:

Does the Appellant’s case against the Respondent under section 2 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 satisfy the first stage of the test for vicarious liability?

More information is available on our website: