Explain how the act or omission was so closely connected with work of the partnership that it can be said that the partnership authorised it under Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd case.

In the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd, the House of Lords held that a partnership could be vicariously liable for the torts of its employees if the torts were so closely connected with the work of the partnership that it could be said that the partnership authorised them. The court held that there were two key factors to consider in determining whether a tort was closely connected with the work of the partnership: The nature of the tort: The tort must be one that is reasonably incidental to the work of the partnership. For example, a partnership of accountants would be vicariously liable for the tort of negligence committed by one of its employees while preparing accounts for a client. The relationship between the employee and the partnership: The employee must have been acting in the course of his or her employment when the tort was committed. This means that the employee must have been doing something that he or she was authorized to do by the partnership, and the tort must have been committed while the employee was acting on behalf of the partnership. In the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd, the court held that the warden's sexual abuse of the children was so closely connected with his work as a warden that it could be said that the school had authorised it. The court found that the warden's abuse was reasonably incidental to his work as a warden, and that he had been acting in the course of his employment when he committed the abuse. The decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd has been criticized by some commentators, who argue that it is too broad and could lead to innocent partners being held liable for the torts of their employees. However, the decision remains good law, and it is important for partnerships to be aware of the potential vicarious liability risks that they face. Here are some additional factors that the court may consider in determining whether a tort was closely connected with the work of the partnership: The nature of the relationship between the partnership and the employee: If the employee is a high-level employee with a great deal of responsibility, the court may be more likely to find that the tort was closely connected with the work of the partnership. The level of control that the partnership had over the employee's activities: If the partnership had a high degree of control over the employee's activities, the court may be more likely to find that the tort was closely connected with the work of the partnership. The extent to which the employee's activities benefited the partnership: If the employee's activities directly benefited the partnership, the court may be more likely to find that the tort was closely connected with the work of the partnership.