Case Study: Hollis V Vabu
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Case Summary 3
Facts 3
Issues 3
Ratio 3
Decision 4
Critical Analysis 4
Commercial Implications 5
Legal Implications 6
Conclusion 6
Bibliography 7
Appendix † Research Plan 8
Introduction
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
Case Summary
Facts
Vabu Pty Ltd trading as “Crisis Couriers” conducted a business of delivering parcels and documents using bicycle, motorcycle and motor vehicle couriers. On 22nd December 1994, Mr. Hollis was struck on the footpath by a cyclist as he was leaving a building in Ultimo. The unidentified cyclist was wearing a green jacket on which was printed “Crisis Couriers”. The accident resulted in a 25% permanent deficit in Mr. Hollis’s knee, which required surgery and rendered him to be unfit for work for a period of time. Mr. Hollis sued Vabu Pty Ltd claiming that the company was vicariously liable for its employee’s negligence.
Issues
The High Court focused primarily on the nature of the employment relationship between Vabu Pty Ltd and its cour...
... middle of paper ...
...eddes, R & Hammer, D (2005) Laying Down the Law. 6th ed. Sydney: LexisNexis
[5] CATANZARITI, Joe, ‘What’s in a name? The independent contractor v employee distinction revisited’, Law Society Journal 39(9) October 2001: 46-47
[6] Australian Air Express Pty Ltd v Langford 41183/03, 2006 NSWCA 96
[7] US v Silk (1946) 3331 U.S
[8] Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co. of Australia Ltd (1919) 26 CLR 110
[9] Quarman v Burnett (1840) 6 M & W 499
[10] Vabu Pty Ltd v Federal Commission of Taxation (1996) 33 ART 537
[11] CHIN, David, ‘Employees or Independent Contractors?’, Law Society Journal 39(11) December 2001: 68-71
[12] CURRAN, Simon, ‘When is a duck not a duck? The employee/independent contractor dichotomy’, Bulletin (Law Society of S.A) 26 (9) October 200etin (Law Society of S.A) 26 (9) October 2004: 23-26
Sloane. A. A., Witney, F. (2010). LABOR RELATIONS (13th editions). Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ
La Trobe Capital & Mortgage Corp Ltd v Hay Property Consultants Pty Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 299
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn D. & Hartman, Laura P. (2001). Employment Law for Business (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing. Downloaded February 4, 2008 from the data base of http://www.eeoc.gov
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
Findlaw.com, 2008. Independent Contractors vs. Microsoft: Don't Treat Contractors Like Employees. Retrieved December 11, 2008 from: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/articles/3737.html
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
Bennett, Alexander, Hartman (2003), Employment Law for Business, Fourth Edition I., The Regulation of the Employment Relationship, The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Commission for Labor Cooperation (2002) “ United States Labor Law.” Viewed online on 11/18/2004 at http://www.naalc.org/english/publications/labormain.htm
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
Also, the tort victim is usually sufficiently compensated through insurance rather than if they claimed against the employee as the master has the ‘deepest pocket’[2]. However, recent developments in the law on vicarious liability not only makes the employer liable for acts that are ‘directly’ connected with what they are employed to do, but it is now established that an employer may be liable for the unauthorised acts of an employee, where those acts are ‘closely connected’ with the nature of the wrongdoer’s employment. The principle of vicarious liability can also burden the operation of a business by placing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on an employer. More money needs to be spent on training, employee’s characteristics need to be assessed and higher costs will be passed on to the consumer.
Suffield, L., & Templer A. (2012). Labour Relations, PH Series in Human Resources Management, 3rd Edition