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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal