Lister et al. v. Hesley Hall Ltd., (2001) 270 N.R. 203 (HL)

• Case Date: May 03, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 270 N.R. 203 (HL)

Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd. (2001), 270 N.R. 203 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Lister and others (AP) (appellants) v. Hesley Hall Limited (respondents)

([2001] UKHL 22)

Indexed As: Lister et al. v. Hesley Hall Ltd.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Millett

May 3, 2001.

Summary:

A warden of a school boarding house abused boys living at the home. At issue in this case was whether the warden's employer, without fault on its part, could be held vicariously liable for its employee's torts.

The House of Lords held that the employer was vicariously liable.

Master and Servant - Topic 3679

Liability of master for acts of servant - Torts - Acts in course of employment - Sexual abuse - The plaintiffs were sexual­ly abused by the warden of a school boarding house, while they were boys - The plain­tiffs sued the warden's employer for dam­ages for personal injuries - At issue was whether the warden's employer, without fault on its part, could be held vicariously liable for its employee's torts, particularly in light of jurisprudence to the contrary (Trotman v. North Yorkshire County Council (Eng. C.A., 1999)) - The House of Lords overruled the Trotman decision and held the employer vicariously liable - The court held that here the war­den's torts were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable - In reaching its decision, the court had par­ticular regard to two 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decisions dealing with liability of employers for sexual abuse.

Master and Servant - Topic 3703

Liability of master for acts of servant - Torts - Wilful acts - Sexual abuse - [See Master and Servant - Topic 3679 ].

Torts - Topic 2530

Vicarious liability - Master and servant - Employer - Liability for acts of employees - Sexual abuse - [See Master and Ser­vant - Topic 3679 ].

Cases Noticed:

Trotman v. North Yorkshire County Coun­cil, [1999] L.G.R. 584 (C.A.), overruled [paras. 8, 32, 53, 64].

P.A.B. v. Children's Foundation et al., (1999), 241 N.R. 266; 124 B.C.A.C. 119; 203 W.A.C. 119; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 45 (S.C.C.), consd. [paras. 10, 48, 53, 70].

P.A.B. v. Curry - see P.A.B. v. Children's Foundation et al.

G.T.-J. et al. v. Griffiths et al. (1999), 241 N.R. 201; 124 B.C.A.C. 161; 203 W.A.C. 161; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 71 (S.C.C.), consd. [paras. 10, 48, 70].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Lockhart, [1942] A.C. 591 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 15, 39].

Racz v. Home Office, [1994] 2 A.C. 45 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 15].

Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co., [1912] A.C. 716 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 17, 36, 57, 71].

Williams v. Hemphill (A. & W.) Ltd., 1966 S.C.(H.L.) 31, refd to. [paras. 18, 39, 59].

Morris v. Martin (C.W.) & Sons Ltd., [1966] 1 Q.B. 716 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 19, 46, 56, 71].

Port Swettenham Authority v. Wu (T.W.) & Co. (M.) Sdn Bhd, [1979] A.C. 580 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 19, 76].

Rose v. Plenty, [1976] 1 W.L.R. 141 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 20, 42, 58, 78].

Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Trans­port Ltd., [1980] A.C. 827 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 22, 46, 57, 76].

Kilboy v. South Eastern Fire Area Joint Committee, 1952 S.C. 280, refd to. [para. 34].

Staveley Iron & Chemical Co. v. Jones, [1956] A.C. 627 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35].

Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Shatwell, [1965] A.C. 656 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35].

Sanderson v. Collins, [1904] 1 K.B. 628 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Heiton & Co. v. M'Sweeney, [1905] 2 I.R. 47, refd to. [para. 38].

Kirby v. National Coal Board, 1958 S.C. 514 (Ct. of Session, Inner House), refd to. [paras. 39, 59].

Plumb v. Cobden Flour Mills Co., [1914] A.C. 62 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 40].

Jones v. Tower Boot Co., [1997] I.C.R. 254, refd to. [para. 40].

Ilkiw v. Samuels, [1963] 1 W.L.R. 991 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 42, 58, 77].

Century Insurance Co. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board, [1942] A.C. 509 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 43].

Joel v. Morison (1834), 6 C. & P. 501 (N.P.), refd to. [para. 44].

Deatons Pty. Ltd. v. Flew (1949), 79 C.L.R. 370 (Aust.), refd to. [paras. 44, 81].

Irving v. Post Office, [1987] I.R.L.R. 289, refd to. [para. 44].

Aldred v. Nacanco, [1987] I.R.L.R. 292, refd to. [para. 44].

Heasmans v. Clarity Cleaning Co., [1987] I.C.R. 949 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Central Motors (Glasgow) Ltd. v. Cessnock Garage and Motor Co., 1925 S.C. 796, refd to. [para. 47].

Ward v. Scotrail Railways Ltd., 1999 S.C. 255, refd to. [para. 48].

Meux v. Great Eastern Railway Co., [1895] 2 Q.B. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty. Ltd. v. York Products Pty. Ltd., [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1262 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Foulkes v. Metropolitan District Railway Co. (1880), 5 C.P.D. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Hooper v. London & North Western Rail­way Co. (1880), 50 L.J.Q.B. 103, refd to. [para. 57].

Cheshire v. Bailey, [1905] 1 K.B. 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867), L.R. 2 Exch. 259, refd to. [para. 71].

Dyer v. Munday, [1895] 1 Q.B. 742 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Warren v. Henlys Ltd., [1948] 2 All E.R. 935 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 80].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Atiyah, P.S., Accidents, Compensa­tion and the Law (6th Ed. 1999), p. 85 [para. 65].

Atiyah, P.S., Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (1967), pp. 24, 171 [para. 65]; 271 [para. 19].

Cane, Peter, Vicarious Liability for Sexual Abuse (2000), 116 L.Q.R. 21, generally [para. 53]; p. 24 [para. 10].

Clerk and Lindsell, The Law of Torts (4th Ed. 1906), pp. 74, 75 [para. 38].

Feldthusen, Bruce, Vicarious Liability for Sexual Torts, in Torts Tomorrow: A Trib­ute to John Fleming (1998), gen­erally [para. 53].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (9th Ed. 1998), pp. 409 [para. 14]; 410 [paras. 14, 65].

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, The Common Law (41st Printing 1951), c. 1, p. 5 [para. 34].

Laski, Harold J., The Basis of Vicarious Liability (1916), 26 Yale L.J. 105, p. 130 [para. 74].

Palmer, N.E., Bailment (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 424, 425 [para. 19].

Rose, F.D., Liability for an Employee's Assaults (1977), 40 Modern L.R. 420, pp. 432, 433 [para. 24].

Salmond and Heuston, The Law of Torts (19th Ed. 1987), pp. 521, 522 [para. 15].

Salmond and Heuston, The Law of Torts (20th Ed. 1992), p. 457 [para. 15].

Salmond and Heuston, The Law of Torts (21st Ed. 1996), p. 443 [paras. 8, 15, 36].

Salmond, The Law of Torts (1st Ed. 1907), pp. 83 [paras. 15, 36, 67, 69]; 84 [paras. 15, 37, 69].

Salmond, The Law of Torts (9th Ed. 1936), p. 95 [paras. 8, 15].

Townshend-Smith (2000), 8 Tort L. Rev. 108, p. 111 [para. 66].

Williams, Glanville, Vicarious Liability and the Master's of Indemnity (1957), 20 Modern L.R. 220, p. 231 [para. 65].

Counsel:

Richard Maxwell, Q.C., and Rosalind Coe, for the appellants;

Andrew Collender, Q.C., and Andrew Miller, for the respondents.

Agents:

Last Cawthra Feather, for the appellants;

Beachcroft Wanbroughs, for the respon­dents.

This appeal was heard at London, England, on March 7 and 8, 2001, before Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Millett, of the House of Lords.

The decision of the House of Lords was delivered on May 3, 2001, and the following speeches were given:

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 1 to 30;

Lord Clyde - see paragraphs 31 to 51;

Lord Hutton - see paragraph 52;

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 53 to 63;

Lord Millett - see paragraphs 64 to 85.