0370 270 6000

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd, House of Lords, 3 May 2001

8 May 2001
The issues

Negligence – Employer’s Duty – Vicarious Liability – Residential Schools – Whether An Employer Can Be Liable For Sexual Abuse Committed By An Employee

The facts

Hesley Hall Limited ran a school for boys with emotional and behavioural difficulties. G was employed as a Warden and House Keeper. Between 1979 and 1982 G subjected the Claimants to systematic sexual abuse. He sued Hesley Hall Limited on the grounds that it was negligent in selecting, appointing and supervising G and on the grounds that it was vicariously liable for G’s wrongdoing.

At first instance the Judge dismissed the claim in negligence and held that the Claimant could not be vicariously liable for the sexual assaults themselves which could not possibly come within G’s scope of duties as employee. However, the Judge held that Hesley Hall Limited was liable vicariously for G’s failure to report any harm which he perceived had come to any of the boys in his care.

The Court of Appeal allowed Hesley Hall Limited’s appeal on the grounds that if the sexual assaults were themselves outside the course of his employment the failure to prevent or report hose assaults could not possibly be within the course of him employment.

The decision

1. The Court of Appeal had taken the wrong approach in trying to decide whether the acts for which an employer was sought to be held vicariously liable were modes of doing authorised acts. This was simplistic and erroneous.

2. The proper approach was to adopt a broad assessment of the nature of the employees employment.

3. If that approach was adopted it was possible to look at the question of vicarious liability on the basis that Hesley Hall Limited had undertaken to care for the boys in its care through the services of G. ST v North Yorkshire County Council was wrongly decided.

4. The determining factor was whether or not G’s wrongdoing was so closely associated with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold Hesley Hall Limited vicariously liable and on the facts of this case the answer was yes.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up