“Employers liable for staff's intentional crimes if closely connected to job”
The defendants operated a school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The claimants were former pupils who alleged sexual abuse by the house warden. The warden was convicted of sexual offences against the boys while they were resident at the school.
Whether an employer can be vicariously liable for intentional wrongdoing by an employee that is not authorised and is performed for the employee's own gratification rather than the employer's benefit.
The House of Lords held that the defendants were vicariously liable for the warden's sexual abuse of the claimants.
This case significantly expanded vicarious liability by moving away from the restrictive 'course of employment' test to a more flexible 'close connection' approach, particularly important for institutional abuse cases.
You're reading the free summary of Lister v Hesley Hall. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.