In simple terms
A company can only act through people. The law makes it liable for their acts in two ways: through for employees, and by treating its senior managers' state of mind as its own.
Contract and tort are different
A company that breaks a contract is liable in contract, not in . Tort liability arises where the company, or someone for whom it is responsible, commits a tort such as , deceit or . The same facts can sometimes give rise to both.
Vicarious liability
A company, like any employer, is vicariously liable for torts its employees commit in the .
Fraud by an agent: in Lloyd v Grace Smith a solicitors' managing clerk tricked a client into transferring her property to him. The firm was liable, although it did not benefit, because the clerk was doing the kind of work he was employed to do.
Theft by an employee: in Morris v CW Martin an employee stole a fur coat sent to his employers for cleaning. The employers were liable, because they had entrusted the coat to him.
Close connection: in Lister v Hesley Hall the warden of a boarding house abused boys in his care. The House of Lords held the employer liable, because the abuse was so closely connected with his employment that it was fair and just to hold the employer liable.
Direct liability: the directing mind
Some wrongs need a guilty mind or personal fault. Here the courts identify the people whose state of mind counts as the company's.
Lennard's Carrying v Asiatic Petroleum: the fault of the director who actively managed the company's ships was the company's own fault, so it could not rely on a statutory defence available only where the owner was not at fault.
Tesco v Nattrass: a store manager was not part of Tesco's directing mind. Tesco had set up proper systems at board level, so it could use the statutory defence that the offence was due to the act or default of another person.
Liability of officers
Directors and officers are not liable for the company's wrongs just because of their office. But a director who personally commits or directs a tort can be liable with the company, and the Act creates offences that make officers in default personally liable.
Memory map
Company liability in tort and crime
Vicarious liability
- Fraud by an agent
- Theft by an employee
- Close connection
Direct liability
- Lennard's Carrying v Asiatic Petroleum
- Tesco v Nattrass
Key points
- Breach of contract by a company is a contract…
- A company is vicariously liable for employees'…
- The test is a close connection with the…
- For fault-based liability, the state of mind of…
Cases
- Lloyd v Grace, Smith and Co
- Morris v CW Martin and Sons Ltd
- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
- Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v…
Key terms
- Tort
- Negligence
- Vicarious liability
- Course of employment
Take-home points
- Breach of contract by a company is a contract claim; tort liability needs a tort.
- A company is vicariously liable for employees' torts in the course of employment, including fraud and theft: Lloyd v Grace Smith; Morris v Martin.
- The test is a close connection with the employment: Lister v Hesley Hall.
- For fault-based liability, the state of mind of the company's directing mind is the company's: Lennard's.
- A store manager is not normally the directing mind of a large company: Tesco v Nattrass.
Cases in this topic
- Lloyd v Grace, Smith and Co
- Morris v CW Martin and Sons Ltd
- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
- Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd
- Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass
Lecture notes on this subject
No other Lanbuk notes on this module yet. Browse the law notes.
Other law notes by subject
Arbitration
Business and human rights
Civil procedure
- The Slip Rule and Judicial Finality: Correcting Errors in Court Orders in the UK and Sierra Leone
- Sierra Leone's Court System and Starting Civil Proceedings in the High Court
- Who Addresses the Court First in Closing Speeches, and Why
- Disposal of Cases on Points of Law under Order 17
- Garnishee Proceedings under Order 50
- Interlocutory and Final Judgments
Constitutional and administrative law
Contract law
Criminal procedure
- No Case Submission: Interpreting 'Otherwise Deals in or With' under the National Drugs Control Act 2008
- Legal Authorities for a No Case Submission on Drug Importation Charges
- No Case to Answer: Analysis of a Drug Importation Prosecution
- Criminal Procedure: Law School Notes
- Submission of No Case to Answer: Dealing in Prohibited Drugs
Environmental and climate law
Equity and trusts
Exam preparation
Family law
Human rights
International law
Radiation and nuclear safety law

