Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd.

Facts

• The defendant operated a residential care home for vulnerable children
• An employee, a warden at the home, deliberately sexually abused residents under his care
• This abuse was never authorised in any sense by the employer
• The claimants sought to hold the employer vicariously liable

Issue

1. Whether an employer can be vicariously liable for deliberate, serious wrongdoing by an employee, conduct never remotely authorised, committed against persons in the employer's care.

Held

• The traditional test (authorised act done carelessly, or unauthorised mode of authorised task) could not adequately address deliberate wrongdoing
• The House of Lords adopted a "close connection" test: whether the wrongful conduct was so closely connected to the employment that it is fair and just to hold the employer liable
• The employment created the specific access, trust, and opportunity that enabled the abuse
• This close connection was sufficient to support vicarious liability

Ratio Decidendi

Vicarious liability extends to conduct closely connected to the employment relationship, even where the specific conduct was never authorised, where the employment created the opportunity and access enabling the wrongdoing, and it would be fair and just to hold the employer liable given this connection.