element 2

• there must be a sufficiently close connection between employment and the employees conduct (the tort)
• Lister v Hesley Hall


  introduced close connection test: was commission of the alleged tort 'closely connected' to the employment?
• Dubai Aluminium


  this is the starting point
• Cox v MOJ


  organisation doesn't have to carry out commercial activity or make a profit - can still be liable
• Muhammed v Morrisons


  not liable if no close connection
• Armes v Nottingham CC


  is the role integral to the business
• Salmond approach
• Rose v Plenty


  there will be a liability where employee acts against orders and the employee benefits
• Twine v Beans Express


  but not if they don't
• Century Insurance


  liable if the employee doing job negligently
• Hilton v Thomas Burton


  if employee acts on 'frolic' of their own when tort occurs, the employer may not be liable
• Smith v Stages


  can be liable for a frolic if they are still being paid in the time it happened
• Civil Liability Act 1987


  if found liable, victim can receive compensation from the employer