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

  • Converting commercial property into homes: what the latest planning changes mean
    Converting offices and other commercial buildings into homes can create opportunities, but planning rules are only part of the picture. We explain the latest changes and the legal issues property owners, developers and buyers should consider before p


    Read more
  • Closing the AI skills gap
    Learn how SMEs can close the AI skills gap through practical staff training, checking AI outputs, protecting sensitive data and setting clear policies.


    Read more
  • What’s in a letter: Why one small change can spell big trouble for your brand
    Can changing one letter really protect your business name? Peter Moody examines recent trade mark disputes involving FLOWERBX and Vogue, and what businesses can learn about protecting their brands.


    Read more
  • Service charge disputes in mixed-use properties: who is responsible for what?
    Service charges in mixed-use properties can lead to disagreements between landlords, residential leaseholders and commercial tenants. We explore their legal rights, a recent Court of Appeal decision and how disputes can be resolved.


    Read more
  • The do’s and don’ts of using AI in your business
    AI can help businesses improve efficiency and make informed decisions, but it also comes with risks. Explore the key do’s and don’ts of using AI responsibly, including data protection, legal considerations and the importance of human oversight.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Rahul Khanna, October 2026
    Thank you – excellent service “Thank you so much to Qaiser, Vinay and Alex, who were extremely helpful throughout a long-running and complex matter. I really appreciated their clear advice and support.”

  • Client, October 2026
    Feedback “I engaged Karen Cole at RIAA Barker Gillette to support me through a grievance process and help me navigate discussions with my employer. From the outset, Karen provided clear, pragmatic advice and took the time to explain my options,

  • Bryan E, September 2026
    Absolutely outstanding “This firm is super professional, efficient and friendly at the same time. You could not wish for a better service. I have used them for my Will and a range of other matters over many years. I’ve found all the vario

  • Jan Norris, September 2026
    Excellent Service “Charlotte Barbaroussis has prepared our wills, LPAs and a discretionary trust. She was professional, kind and patient throughout. A very fine person to have looking after us.”

  • Brian Nunan, August 2026
    “I dealt with the group for many years, and no matter which solicitor I used, the results were always the same. Excellent!”

Read more