According to Giliker (2021) the expansion of the doctrine of vicariousliability: “has, perhaps unsurprisingly, brought uncertainty, as litigantstest its boundaries”.Explain the recent cases in which the Supreme Court has expanded thedoctrine of vicarious liability and illustrate its attempts to address thisuncertainty.

The doctrine of vicarious liability has been expanded in recent years by the Supreme Court in several key cases.

1. Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (2016): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the supermarket was vicariously liable for a violent assault by one of its employees on a customer. The Court expanded the "close connection" test, stating that the employee's role gave him the opportunity to commit the assault, and his actions were closely connected to his job.

2. Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc (2020): The Supreme Court held that the bank was vicariously liable for sexual assaults committed by a doctor it had engaged to conduct medical examinations. The Court expanded the concept of "relationship akin to employment", stating that the bank had a sufficient degree of control over the doctor.

3. Various Claimants v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (2020): The Court held that the supermarket was not vicariously liable for a data breach by a disgruntled employee. The Court clarified that the "close connection" test requires an examination of the nature of the job and the wrongdoing, and the employee's motive is relevant.

These cases illustrate the Supreme Court's attempts to address the uncertainty surrounding the expansion of the doctrine of vicarious liability. The Court has sought to provide clearer guidance on the "close connection" test and the concept of "relationship akin to employment". However, as Giliker (2021) notes, this expansion has also brought uncertainty as litigants test its boundaries.