## Facts

- This case concerned a boarding school managed by Hesley Hall Ltd, where a warden, identified as G, was employed to care for and supervise resident boys.
- G was entrusted with responsibilities over the boys’ welfare, discipline, and their routines, including after-school supervision.
- Over a period of time, G perpetrated sexual abuse against several boys under his care; the school management was unaware of these acts.
- The abuse occurred within the workplace and during times when G was performing his educational duties.
- The principal legal question was whether Hesley Hall Ltd could be vicariously liable for the intentional and unauthorized acts of abuse committed by G, given their connection to his employment.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer-employee relationship between Hesley Hall Ltd and G was of a kind that could engage vicarious liability for intentional torts.
2. Whether the traditional Salmond test for vicarious liability was adequate for cases of intentional wrongdoing such as sexual abuse.
3. Whether there was a sufficiently close connection between G’s torts and his employment to justify holding the employer vicariously liable.

## Decision

- The House of Lords rejected the traditional Salmond test as overly restrictive for cases involving intentional wrongdoing by employees.
- The court established the "close connection" test, focusing on whether the torts were so closely connected to the employment that it would be just to impose liability on the employer.
- It was determined that G’s abuse resulted from his position of trust and authority and was directly linked to his employment duties.
- The employer, Hesley Hall Ltd, was found vicariously liable for the acts of abuse perpetrated by G.

## Legal Principles

- Vicarious liability can apply where there is a sufficiently close connection between the employee’s wrongful acts and their employment responsibilities.
- The "close connection" test replaced the Salmond test for vicarious liability in cases of intentional torts, including sexual abuse.
- An employer may be liable where the nature of the employment creates or increases the risk of abuse and the acts arise from an abuse of the position entrusted to the employee.
- Mere opportunity to commit abuse is insufficient; the risk must be closely tied to the employee’s specific role and responsibilities.

## Conclusion

Lister v Hesley Hall marked a significant development in vicarious liability law, introducing the "close connection" test and establishing that employers can be held liable for employees’ intentional torts where such acts are closely linked to their employment, especially in positions involving authority and trust over vulnerable individuals.


Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215 (HL)