On 12th January 2014, Skelton uploaded a file containing the data of 98,998 employees to a publicly accessible file-sharing website, with links to the data posted on other websites. The file was created from the USB stick that he had downloaded the payroll data onto, while the uploading of the data took place when he was at home, using the untraceable mobile phone, false email account and dodgy software he had acquired.
On the day Morrisons’ financial results were due to be announced, he sent CDs containing the file which he had uploaded onto the public website, to three UK newspapers, while pretending to be a concerned member of the public.
The legal question was whether Morrisons were liable to the Claimants for the actions of Skelton.
The employees won in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Their claims were for money in respect of the distress, anxiety, upset and damage caused. To use the legal expression, it was decided that Morrisons were ‘vicariously liable’ for the actions of Mr Skelton.
Morrisons appealed to the Supreme Court, who overturned the decision of the Court of the High Court, and the High Court.
These lower courts decided that Morrisons were liable because Skelton’s actions arose from a task closely related to what he was employed to do.
Five Supreme Court judges disagreed. They said that there could not be any liability when an employee is on ‘a frolic of his own’.
As a basis for their judgement, the five Supreme Court judges examined the case of a Managing Director attending a work Christmas party, who punched an employee while illustrating who was in charge of the business (employer was found liable). The court compared this with another case in which a Police Officer left his post and accidentally shot a bystander, after becoming enraged that his girlfriend was in a bar with another man (employer found not liable).