Skip to main content

Insight article

January 10, 2019

Misbehaviour at the office Christmas party?

Litigation involving the antics of misbehaving employees at the office Christmas party have not only shown that sometimes fact is stranger than fiction, but that on occasion the long-awaited Christmas party can go badly wrong.

Whilst it would be hoped that most employees return to work following a Christmas break with nothing more remarkable than the post-Christmas blues, on occasion, employers can be dealing with the fallout from an office party disaster.

Employers can be held vicariously liable for discriminatory acts of employees – even if the event is held off-site and out of normal working hours.

The same can be said for liability for injury to a member of staff inflicted by another. Recently, in the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Limited, the Court of Appeal ruled that a company was vicariously liable for the conduct of its Managing Director at a Christmas party following a physical attack on one of the employees by the MD, leaving the employee severely disabled.

In 2015, in an equally strange set of facts, a claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim in Westlake v ZSL London Zoo. At London Zoo’s Christmas party, zookeeper Ms Westlake got into a fight with a colleague over a love triangle involving another zookeeper. The exact details of the incident were disputed, but one of the individuals was hit in the face with a glass that Ms Westlake was holding. London Zoo decided to dismiss Westlake for fighting with a colleague, with the other member of staff involved given a final written warning. The tribunal stated that since the employer was unable to determine who started the fight, it was legitimate to dismiss both individuals or give both final written warnings – it was unfair to treat them differently. The unfair dismissal claim was upheld, but the tribunal decided to reduce the award to zero because of the conduct of the claimant.

A further example of the perils of the Christmas party is Bhara v Ikea Limited, in which, what is described as a tussle took place between two colleagues. Mr Bhara was dismissed, and it was found that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and was, therefore, fair, even when the employees involved in the incident did not feel it was particularly serious.

These cases are ample demonstration of the perils of the office Christmas party and the potential risks it can pose for employers. If misconduct occurs at the Christmas party, employers should ensure that they conduct a reasonably thorough investigation before any disciplinary action. Furthermore, in advance of the Christmas party, at risk of being accused of being the “Fun Police”, employers should have a clear policy on what standard of behaviour is acceptable and ideally issue a statement to employees in advance of the party to remind all staff.

For further advice and information, contact Karen Cole today.

Note: This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more
  • Supreme court ruling on referees’ employment status
    In PGMOL v HMRC, the Supreme Court considered whether professional referees were self-employed. The case has the potential for far-reaching implications across the employment world.


    Read more
  • Business First Magazine
    Read our expert insights on key workplace and corporate issues.


    Read more
  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more
  • Ensuring equality: A legal guide to responsibilities and compliance
    Understanding equal opportunities in the workplace


    Read more

What they say...

  • Henry, April 2025
    “We have purchased flats before with 2 different solicitors who were unable to help us this time. Martin came highly recommended and are we glad. He was very professional in every way: knowledgeable, approachable, he has a friendly manner, very

  • Megan Purcell-Jones, April 2025
    “Charlotte was extremely diligent and thorough. She talked us through the process of making our wills and listened to and understood our needs and the complexities involved. Extremely patient and very clear.”

  • Hena, April 2025
    “Great experience, Patrick was very clear and gave time to explain the legal processes. Friendly and professional communication made me feel comfortable asking questions, received great legal advice.”

  • Michael Constable, April 2025
    “I wanted to revise my will and appoint RIAA Barker Gillette as my Executor and Trustees. This was handled very efficiently and professionally. It helped that I had agreed a fixed fee in advance.” Review left for: Herman Cheung

  • Anon, April 2025
    “Whistleblowing dismissal claim and settlement negotiations I can not speak highly enough of this firm and [Patrick Simpson], they were not only understanding of my case needs they also worked with the up most integrity and professionalism to e

Read more