Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

UK People Reward and Mobility Hub

The latest updates in employment, benefits, pensions and immigration

open menu close menu

UK People Reward and Mobility Hub

  • Home
  • Events
    • Past events
  • Who We Are
    • Meet the team
  • How we can help

Court of Appeal considers an employer’s duty of care to protect an employee from criminal conviction

By Amy Gordon
March 16, 2023
  • Employment contracts
  • General
  • Termination
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Benyatov v. Credit Suisse (Securities) Europe Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 140, the Court of Appeal held that an employer did not owe an employee a duty of care to avoid a criminal conviction and that there was no implied term requiring them to indemnify him against loss of future earnings due to his conviction. 

The facts

Mr Benyatov was an employee of Credit Suisse from 1996 to June 2015, based in London. In November 2006, Mr Benyatov was arrested by the Romanian authorities on suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.  This related to a project on which he was advising, concerning the purchase of a state-owned electricity company. In January 2007, Mr Benyatov was charged and on 3 December 2013 the Romanian authorities found him guilty of wronging and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Credit Suisse supported Mr Benyatov with his appeal to the Romanian courts and his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in July 2015. On 27 January 2015, the Romanian Appeal Court overturned the conviction, replacing it with a different charge which attracted a lesser sentence of four and half years.

Upon his conviction, Credit Suisse informed the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Mr Benyatov could no longer work as a regulated financial professional in the UK or elsewhere. Mr Benyatov’s employment with Credit Suisse was terminated on 13 June 2015.

The claim

In 2018, Mr Benyatov brought a claim against Credit Suisse in the High Court for career-loss earnings of £66 million, alleging:

  • Credit Suisse breached its duty of care not to expose him to a risk of criminal conviction in the performance of his duties (the Negligence Claim); and
  • it was an implied term of his contract that Credit Suisse would indemnify him against a loss of the kind suffered (the Contractual Indemnity Claim).

The High Court dismissed both claims and held that, whilst there was in principle a duty for an employer to take reasonable care to protect an employee from consequential economic loss, much depends on the facts.  In this case, it was not appropriate to imply such a duty. Romania was not a high-risk country and Mr Benyatov was not involved in a high-risk transaction. The conviction was not reasonably foreseeable in the performance of Mr Benyatov’s duties and so a duty of care was not established. The Court therefore dismissed both claims.

Mr Benyatov appealed this decision.

The Court of Appeal judgment

In relation to the Negligence Claim, the court held that the correct approach in determining the existence of a duty of care would be to consider the three factors identified in Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.  These are (i) foreseeability, (ii) proximity, and (iii) fairness, justice and reasonableness. In this case, the High Court had given appropriate consideration to these factors, based on the particular facts of this case. The most pertinent issue for determination was foreseeability and it was found that the High Court had not erred in its findings. Credit Suisse did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the risk of criminal conviction to Mr Benyatov and could not be taken to have assumed responsibility for risks that were not reasonably foreseeable.

In relation to the Contractual Indemnity Claim, it was common ground between the parties that it was an implied term of Mr Benyatov’s employment contract that Credit Suisse would indemnify him in respect of expenses and liabilities reasonably incurred by him in carrying out his duties as an employee. However, it would not be fair or reasonable to imply the indemnity sought by Mr Benyatov on the facts of this case.  The Court of Appeal considered the current position to strike a fair balance between the parties’ interests and found that such an indemnity would make employers liable to compensate employees for loss of earnings, even where the loss was caused by a third party and there was no fault on the employer’s part, merely because the employee had suffered harm while doing their job. The decision is a useful consideration of the extent to which the courts will impose a duty of care and imply an indemnity to compensate an employee for losses that they incur during employment. This case is a reminder both of the principles that the courts will take into account and also that cases such as this will always turn on their own facts.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
employment contracts, general, termination
Amy Gordon

About Amy Gordon

All posts

You might also like...

  • Discrimination
  • Sickness absence
  • Termination
  • Unfair dismissal

Out of time, but not out of the running

The EAT handed down its judgement in the appeal of Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v. Morgan this […]

By Verity Buckingham
  • Atypical workers
  • Employee benefits
  • Employment contracts
  • Holiday pay
  • Working Time

Supreme Court – employers cannot prorate holiday entitlement for part-year workers

By Amy Gordon
  • Employment contracts
  • Industrial action
  • Industrial relations
  • Legislation
  • Trade Unions
  • Unfair dismissal

Detriment short of dismissal: protection from detriment for participating in or organising industrial action cannot be read into TULCRA 1992

By Sarah Lovell

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

Dentons logo

© 2023 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site