'The law in question is 1997's Protection from Harassment Act. The Act does not define harassment, which has enabled courts to permit it to mean tabloid newspaper campaigns and the behaviour of animal rights activists.

The claim of William Majrowski was originally summarily struck out by the Central London County Court by Judge Collins. "He held that the 1997 Act was not designed to create another level of liability in employment law. Employees are already adequately protected by the common law," said this week's judgment. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision.

The House of Lords decided that the Act covers the behaviour of employees at work even when the employer has not caused or failed to prevent the offending behaviour. Those employers now have vicarious liability for the acts of employees.

Previously employees had to prove that the employer was negligent in not stopping bullying taking place and that it had caused them psychological damage. The new ruling means that companies can be sued even if the company can not be expected to have known about the bullying.

"The decision has serious implications for employers as it gives employees who are bullied or harassed at work a further basis on which to claim compensation from their employers," said Louise Donaldson, a senior associate specialising in employment law at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM.'
Read more at OUT-LAW.Com  and the full ruling here.