CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v SchokmanCitation:[2023] HCA 21Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot JJDate:02 Aug 2023Case Number:B43/2022Read more

The court held that the appellant was not vicariously liable as the wrongful act was not sufficiently connected to the employment to fall within the course or scope of employment.

Parties: Plaintiff: Respondent; Defendant: Appellant
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 02 August 2023
Procedural Posture: Tort Negligence / Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Negligence, Vicarious Liability

Tort Law Negligence Vicarious Liability

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 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Respondent

Plaintiff

Appellant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the appellant employer is vicariously liable for the negligent act of one employee towards another in shared accommodation required by the employment contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant was not vicariously liable as the wrongful act was not sufficiently connected to the employment to fall within the course or scope of employment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Judgment for the appellant
Respondent's claim dismissed