How has this new test been applied in other cases,post-Lister?

The House of Lords decision in Lister v Hesley Hall ltd(2001)IRLR 472,challenfed the common law test for determining vicarious liability and has thus widened the potential liability of employers for the wrongful acts of his employees and others working in his premises.


Can any lawyer discuss the accuracy of this statement.How has this new test been applied in other cases,post-Lister?
The test in Lister (1. Is the tort so closely connected with the employee's course of employment that 2. it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable) has been applied in the years preceeding by a number of different jurisdictions. In:





England: Dubai v Aluminuium Salaam [2003] 1 All ER 97


Canada: Bazley v Curry [1999] 174 DLR (4th) 45


Ireland: Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158





I strongly recommend reading the judgement in Mattis. The judge very clearly explains the implications of Lister. (You can access it on bailii) While Mattis was not a sexual abuse case, the employee did act entirely out of the course of his employment, notwithstanding, the employer (defendant) was still held liable.How has this new test been applied in other cases,post-Lister?
i can discuss it but my usaul fee of 拢350 per hour will apply