The case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd was first tried in 1999 and, when rejected, appealed and was dealt with by the House of Lords whose sensational decision overturned the Salmond test and for the first time explicitly tested to determine a close employment-related link. There were many examples of cases where the test had been implemented, such as Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co and Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd and others, although up until the time of Lister v Hesley Hall this was only achieved implicitly. Axeholme House, a boarding school attached to Wilsic Hall School owned and operated by Hesley Hall Ltd, opened in 1979 and from that time until 1982, the appellants, who were among approximately 18 boys, all aged between 12 and 15 years old, lived there. Children with emotional and behavioral problems attended school. Mr. and Mrs. Grain were kept there as guardians and housekeepers. The director's duties, as the boarding house authority, allowed him to commit indecent acts towards teenagers for his own pleasure, causing psychological suffering to those affected. The defendants say they admitted they knew sexual abuse was a reality at the prison. boarding school environment, and also that the director sexually abused the applicants, albeit without their knowledge, in the form of mutual masturbation, oral sex and sodomy. This was administered gradually after getting into the good books of the then students by being lenient with them. The case was opened in the early 1990s, not during the reign of the director and his wife who remained there until 1982. And in 1997 charges were issued against the defendants for injury. The allegations had been twofold: firstly, ...... middle of paper ...... n regarding the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd was correct. If it had been left as a decision in the case of Trotman v North Yorkshire County Council, it could easily have been seen as an avenue for sexual abuse. The employer took care of the children through the director, and therefore there was a connection between the director's actions and his employment. The defendants were responsible for taking care of the innocent students and, having taken the help of the director, they should have taken precautions to thwart such lewd behavior as they knew that such behavior was not unlikely in such institutions. In short, I agree with Atiyah, who in Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts writes: "The master should be liable for all those wrongs which can reasonably be considered risks reasonably incidental to the type of business he carries on".