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

  • Pension and inheritance tax changes from April 2027: why now is the time to review your will and estate plan
    From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and pension death benefits are expected to be included in a person’s estate for inheritance tax purposes. This article explains what the changes could mean for families, pension nominations, wills, chari


    Read more
  • What happens when company owners disagree? The key to keeping private companies running smoothly
    Director and shareholder disagreements can quickly disrupt a business if they are not addressed early. This article explains what disputes can mean for a private company, how they can be avoided, and how legal advice can help protect stability and su


    Read more
  • SMEs urged to review risks as liability rules expand
    New criminal liability rules taking effect on 29 June 2026 will make it easier to prosecute businesses of any size where senior managers commit offences while acting on the organisation’s behalf.


    Read more
  • AI-written grievances add new pressure for employers
    AI is making it easier for employees to produce detailed, formal-looking grievances that refer to legal concepts and workplace rights. For employers, the key is to look beyond the language, identify the core concern and follow a fair, consistent grie


    Read more
  • What to check in a new build contract
    Buying a new build home can be exciting, but the legal process carries important risks. From long-stop dates and mortgage deadlines to specifications, deposits, service charges and warranties, early legal advice can help protect your position before


    Read more

What they say...

  • Client, July 2026
    Pragmatic, but commercially astute support “Genuinely, we valued your pragmatic, but commercially astute support. It has helped us get this tricky deal over the line in a manner that we both feel supports our needs in a balanced way and gives L

  • Chey, July 2026
    Professional and speedy “I’m extremely happy with the service provided by RIAA Barker Gillette. They were very professional, dealt with my matter at speed and were very accommodating with my disability. I wouldn’t hesitate to use th

  • Client, June 2026
    Thank you “I had a call with Pippa that was not only factual and to the point but also reassuring and very helpful. Would highly recommend.”

  • Client, June 2026
    Trusts services “Very helpful service which solved our problem.”

  • Client, June 2026
    Probate Services “We used Patrice Lawrence to deal with our parents’ probate, and she handled the case promptly, professionally and with the respect due for a matter of this nature.”

Read more
Send this to a friend