Bob may be sued by the neighbour for damages for burning down her property. Because Bobs actions fell outside those of which the company he was an agent for had authorised, a standard civil case may be imposed.

Quick Construction Ltd (Q) may not be able to be sued by the neighbour, as they may not be held vicariously liable for the damage to the property. The agent, Bob, had been tasked with ensuring projects are completed on time. Although a company is generally vicariously liable for the tortious actions of their agents (Firestone Tyre Co Ltd v Desmond), the conduct of Bob burning the neighbours property was not within the scope of the task the agent had been engaged to perform, as required in Dollars & Sense Ltd v Nathan. Although it was a way of speeding up the project, it was a highly illegal action. In the decision of Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd, the close connection test asks Are the acts so closely connected with the acts that the agent is authorised to do so that the acts can fairly be regarded as being done by the employee in the ordinary course of the firms business? Assuming that Q does not condone such illegal behaviour, it is fair to suppose that the tortious act cannot be regarded as being in the ordinary course of business, as there must be more sensible ways to go about fulfilling the task (making a new access way). The tortious act is only incidentally connected to the task Bob was to perform. Therefore, the act cannot be assumed to be a materialisation of the risk inherent to the task (Dollars & Sense), and thus a vicarious liability lawsuit may not be imposed.

The owner of the neighbouring property has no claim against the parent Conglomerate Ltd. In general, a parent company is not vicariously liable for the actions of an employee acting in the capacity of a director of one of its subsidiaries. This is held in Kuwait Asia Bank EC v National Mutual Life Nominees Ltd. This is so the shareholder i.e. the parent company would still maintain limited liability, as to not contradict the Salomon case.