2)D be vicariously liable for their employee's actions in stabbing the claimant. Is there a close connection between the doorman's employment and the stabbing.

3) Judge at first instance - employer couldn't be vicariously liable wasn't sufficiently close connection - too far as he had gone home. Lapse of time, so when he left the club, the connection ended.

4) Who appealed - Mattis (claimant) appealed

1) Relying on Lister - close connection

2) Relied on Basley v Curry

1) Mattis v Pollock (trading as Flamingos Nightclub) [2003] 1 W.L.R. 2158, [21]

2) Basely v Curry

1)

• Previous case is not authoritative unless identical

• Where an ee is expected to use violence during the course of his employment the likelihood of falling within the broad scope of his employment is greater than if it were not. [25], [33]

• Distinguished Daniels, no instructions. But was acting on his own behalf [28]

• He was encouraged to act aggressively and in an intimidatory manner [30]

• He shouldn't have been employed

• Still in working hours [31]

• Revenge [31]

3) Mattis (n1) [32]

4) ibid [23]