Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48 is an English vicarious liability case, concerning also breach of trust and dishonest assistance.
The House of Lords held that Amhurst's was entitled to a contribution (which amounted to indemnity) from Mr Salaam.
The 1890 Act was not restricted to tortious wrongs, and Mr Amhurst's actions were in the ordinary course of the business (Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd).
Given that Mr Salaam still possessed the proceeds of fraud it was equitable for him to pay the surplus for the firm's $10m liability.
The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risks to others.
This policy reason dictates that liability for agents should not be strictly confined to acts done with the employer's authority.
Additionally, it is a fact of life, and therefore to be expected by those who carry on businesses, that sometimes their agents may exceed the bounds of their authority or even defy express instructions.
At the same time it could ‘be based simply on the receipt, treating it as a restitutionary claim independent of any wrongdoing.’ Lord Hobhouse gave a short concurring judgment.