CENTRELEASE EQUIPMENT FINANCE PTY LTD v BULLOCK and ORS [1997] NSWCA 63

CENTRELEASE EQUIPMENT FINANCE PTY LTD v BULLOCK and ORS [1997] NSWCA 63

Mr Barlow was an independent contractor, not a servant of Centrelease. Therefore, Centrelease was not vicariously liable for his alleged negligence. The findings of the trial judge applying a simple 'control' test were in error; the appeal was upheld, and verdict for Mr Bullock was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Centrelease Equipment Finance Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Mr Bullock; Second Respondent: Gedney Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as Associated Investigation Services); Third Respondent: Daryl Barlow (Sanipi Pty Ltd)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Employee Vs Independent Contractor
Tort Law Negligence Vicarious Liability Employee Vs Independent Contractor

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Centrelease Equipment Finance Pty Ltd

Appellant

Mr Bullock

First Respondent

Gedney Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as Associated Investigation Services)

Second Respondent

Daryl Barlow (Sanipi Pty Ltd)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Centrelease was vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of Mr Barlow during equipment repossession
  2. 2 Whether Mr Barlow was an employee or independent contractor in relation to Centrelease

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Barlow was an independent contractor, not a servant of Centrelease. Therefore, Centrelease was not vicariously liable for his alleged negligence. The findings of the trial judge applying a simple 'control' test were in error; the appeal was upheld, and verdict for Mr Bullock was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld as regards the verdict in favour of the First Respondent (Mr Bullock) against the Appellant (Centrelease).
  • The verdict for the First Respondent is set aside; verdict is entered for Appellant against First Respondent.