TORT LAW 13: An Analysis of Dual Vicarious Liability in Australia

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of dual vicarious liability within the framework of Australian tort law. It begins by defining agency and its relationship to the principal's liability, differentiating between agency and vicarious liability. The discussion then delves into the evolution of vicarious liability, contrasting the approaches of UK and Australian courts, particularly in light of cases like Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC. The essay examines the key elements required to establish vicarious liability, focusing on the employer-employee relationship, the scope of employment, and the distinction between employees and independent contractors, referencing cases like Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd and Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd. The concept of dual vicarious liability is introduced, explaining how two defendants can be held liable for an employee's actions under common law, and contrasting the approaches in England and Australia, where dual liability is not generally recognized, with the exception of statutory provisions like section 917C of the Corporations Act (Cth). The essay concludes by highlighting the complexities of determining liability in scenarios involving multiple employers and the implications for legal practice.

Running head: TORT LAW
TORT LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1TORT LAW
Introduction:
By extending the scope and extent of agency, it can be defined a relation where a person
is given responsibility to act on behalf of another person, in such case the former person is called
the agent whereas the latter person is known as the principal of the agent as held by Bosse,
Douglas A., and Robert A. Phillips1. However, the distinguishing line between the two is blurry
and confusing. In law of contract, a principal is generally liable for the act of the agent acting
within the limit of agency except in some situations. Moreover, in some cases, the principal can
be made solely liable.
On the other hand, in tort, a principal can be made liable only in limited circumstances
for the acts of their agents as put forward by McNay Lois2. Moreover, as stated by Anthony
Gray, when the principal is responsible, his liability is usually secondary or vicarious to the
primary liability of the agent3.
In this article, the origin as well as the scope, nature and application of the dual vicarious
liability of the principals in Australia will be discussed. Moreover, in what situations the dual
vicarious liability will be appropriate will also be discussed. All these will be evaluated in the
light of common law jurisdictions and practices of modern employment.
1 Bosse, Douglas A., and Robert A. Phillips. "Agency theory and bounded self-interest." Academy of Management
Review 41.2 (2016): 276-297.
2 McNay, Lois. "Agency." The Oxford handbook of feminist theory. 2015.
3 Gray, Anthony. "The enterprise risk theory of vicarious liability." Australian Business Law Review 46.3 (2018):
178-196.

2TORT LAW
Discussion:
It is observed in the recent days that the Supreme Court of United Kingdom has been
generously expanding the scope of the situations where vicarious liability can be applied.
However, the approach followed in Australian courts is contrast to that of UK courts as argued
by Simon Deakin4. In the case of Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC [2016], the High Court of
Australia restated the law involving vicarious liability and while doing it confirmed that there
lies a significant difference between the laws of Australia and UK in this regard5. The decision of
the High Court calls for analysis and discussion for mainly two causes; firstly that the UK courts
have paid close attention to the approach of the Australian authority on vicarious liability. In the
cases of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001]6 and Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002]7,
Australian law is discussed. Similar observation was also found in the landmark cases of
Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016]8. The second reason is that it is important to
reflect on the differences between the laws of vicarious liability observed in Australia and the
UK and to consider the causes behind such difference.
Liability on the basis of agency and vicarious liability can be differentiated on two
grounds; firstly, in the law of agency, a principal is depicted as if he actually did whatever his
agent has done and hence there lies only one defendant whereas under the concept of vicarious
liability, a person who is vicariously responsible is liable jointly for the tort of another person
4 Deakin, Simon. "Organisational Torts: Vicarious Liability versus Non-Delegable Duty." The Cambridge Law
Journal77.1 (2018): 15-18.
5 Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC [2016] HCA 37.
6 Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 [81].
7Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48 [32].
8 Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11 [29].

3TORT LAW
and thus they are another defendant to the other person. It was held by J Kleinschmidt in
"Agency and authority of agents”9.
Secondly, as stated by Dal Pont, agency is dependant mainly on the authority which can
be actual, ostensible or even implied, given by the principal to the agent10. On the other hand, in
case of vicarious liability, focus is mainly on control of one person on the other.
In this part of the write up, the vicarious liability of the employer for the employees is
being discussed. The majority of the High Court justices Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon
and Crennan JJ in the case of Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd [2006]11 stated that there lies
a major difference between the employees and the independent contractors. The employer can be
held liable for the conduct of his employees whereas in case of an independent contractor, the
person was engaged the contractor will not be made vicariously liable as stated by Silink,
Allison, and Desmond Ryan12. It also further added that importance must be given to the course
of employment also. In this case, the majority of the High Court decided that the defendant who
employed a negligent mechanic to perform the repairing was not vicariously liable as the
mechanic was an independent contractor.
The main elements that have to be complied in order to make a successful claim against
the employer of a negligent person on the basis of vicarious liability are that the negligent person
was actually the defendant’s employee and that the tort was committed during the tenure of
employment or with a proper connection with the employment as held by Deakin, Simon13.
9 Kleinschmidt, Jens. "Agency and authority of agents." Encyclopedia of Private International Law. Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited, 2017. 29-39.
10 Dal Pont, G. E. "The Law of Agency." (2018): 155.
11 Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] 226 CLR 161 at [12].
12 Silink, Allison, and Desmond Ryan. "VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS." The
Cambridge Law Journal 77.3 (2018): 458-461.
13 Deakin, Simon. "Organisational Torts: Vicarious Liability versus Non-Delegable Duty." The Cambridge Law
Journal77.1 (2018): 15-18.

4TORT LAW
In another case of Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] 207 CLR 2114, the majority judges
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ of the High Court stated that a defendant
who employed a bicycle courier on a contract was liable for the negligent act of the courier as the
courier was regarded as the employee of the defendant. The judges provided a two limb test for
determining whether the person is an employee or an independent contractor; firstly, it is to be
decided whether the concerned person is running own business or enterprise, secondly, whether
the person has independence in conduct of the operations.
As held by Silink, Allison, and Desmond Ryan, the majority of the judges concluded the
existence of a relation of employment instead of independent contract in the given case on the
basis of following reasons; firstly, the bike courier needed no skill or special qualification and
cannot make an independent career15. Secondly, the couriers had negligible control on the
performance of their work as their work hours were fixed, they had no option to refuse the work,
there is no evidence whether they can transfer their work to others and it is not possible for them
to work for other companies during the stipulated time. Moreover, the court also observed that
the couriers were given clothes to wear during their work time to be represented as the
representatives of the defendant. Moreover, the defendant had control on the remuneration as
well as the annual leave of the couriers. The defendant had control on the working of the
couriers. Thus considering all these aspects the court decided the couriers were the employees of
the defendant and not independent contractors.
As stated by Sharkey, Catherine M., the traditional test to determine whether an employer
will be liable for the acts of his employees can be analyzed from the fact that whether the
14 Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] 207 CLR 21.
15 Silink, Allison, and Desmond Ryan. "VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS." The
Cambridge Law Journal 77.3 (2018): 458-461.

5TORT LAW
employee had done the act during the employment16. If the answer is affirmative, then the
employer can be made liable. It was observed in the case of Greenwood v Commonwealth [1975]
VR 85917.
In the case of Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew [1949] 79 CLR 37018, the High Court decided that
the employer of the barmaid who broke a glass on a customer was not vicariously liable for her
act. The reason behind this is that she was employed to serve drinks to the customers and
throwing of glass cannot be considered as a part of her job. Another case of Prince Alfred
College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37 has provided a thorough analysis of this type of
situations19.
In this case of Prince Alfred College, the victim was sexually abused at his school (the
defendant in this case, the PAC) by the master of the boarding of the school in 1962. The
limitation period ended on 1973. Then the victim was 24 years of age. In 1990, the victim’s son
started going to the same school and since then the victim was suffering from PTSD symptoms.
In 1997, the victim met PAC where he said that he was planning to issue litigation in this regard.
However, victim was convinced for not doing so and he received financial aid instead. But after
that, his mental condition became worse. In 2008, he started litigation against PAC that it was
vicariously responsible for the wrong conduct of its employee. He even applied to extend the
limitation period.
In this suit, the victim’s claim and application were rejected at the first instance following
the principles followed in the case of A, DC v Prince Alfred College Incorporated [2015]
16 Sharkey, Catherine M. "Institutional Liability for Employees' Intentional Torts: Vicarious Liability as a Quasi-
Substitute for Punitive Damages." Valparaiso University Law Review 53 (2019): 18-35.
17 Greenwood v Commonwealth [1975] VR 859 at 860.
18 Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew [1949] 79 CLR 370.
19 Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37.

6TORT LAW
SASC20. The victim made an appeal against the order. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of
South Australia upheld the appeal. PAC again appealed that decision to the High Court. The full
bench in High Court upheld the appeal as to the application of extension but held that it could not
determine the liability question.
In this part of the writing, the scope and concept of dual vicarious liability will be
discussed. Dual vicarious liability means, as per common law, two defendants can be held liable
simultaneously and severally for the act or conduct of an employee as given by Goudkamp,
James, and James Plunkett21. For example, in a situation where a worker is actually put in to
employment by the labour hire company, which is regarded as the general employer but he
actually works at the direction, control and supervision for another entity which is referred to as
the particular employer, then for the act of the employee who can be held liable either both the
employers or any one of them.
In England, as stated by Morgan, Phillip, the concept of dual vicarious liability was a
matter of dispute regarding its application but Australian law does not recognize this concept as
it does permit and allow a servant to serve two masters simultaneously at a single employment as
found in the case of Laugher v Pointer [1826] 5 B & C 5472223. Similar observation was also
found in the case of Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Hall Russell & Co Ltd [1989] 1 AC 64324. This is
because the Australian law does not encourage multiplicity of actions.
20 A, DC v Prince Alfred College Incorporated [2015] SASC at [179].
21 Goudkamp, James, and James Plunkett. "Vicarious liability in Australia: on the move?." Oxford University
Commonwealth Law Journal 17.1 (2017): 162-170.
22 Laugher v Pointer [1826] 5 B & C 547 at 558; 108 ER 204 at 208.
23 Morgan, Phillip. "Vicarious liability for group companies: the final frontier of vicarious liability?." (2015).
24 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Hall Russell & Co Ltd [1989] 1 AC 643 at 686.

7TORT LAW
In 2005, the rule against the application of dual vicarious liability was removed in
England in the leading case of Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern)
Ltd [2005] All ER (D) 93 (Oct); [2006] QB 510; [2005] EWCA Civ 115125.
After the decision of Viasystems case, the scenario of Australia and England in
respect of dual vicarious liability was summarized in the landmark case of Kelly v Bluestone
Global Ltd (in Liq) [2016] WASCA 9026. McLure P in this case held that the decision of the
Viasystems case was again followed in the case of Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare
Society [2012] 3 WLR 131927 by the Supreme Court of England. However there was no response
from the Australian courts. In the case of Day v Ocean Beach Hotel Shellharbour Pty Ltd [2013]
85 NSWLR 33528, it was put forwarded by the New South Wales Court of Appeal, that the
doctrine of dual vicarious liability is contradictory with the majority of the justices Gibbs CJ,
Wilson & Dawson JJ in the landmark case of Oceanic Crest Shipping Company v Pilbara
Harbour Services Pty Ltd [1986] 160 CLR 62629.
It thus becomes prominent that in the Australian Common law, the rule against the
application of vicarious liability is strongly established as mentioned by Goudkamp, James, and
James Plunkett30. However, this common law rule is being replaced in some cases by the
statutory imposition of the dual vicarious liability as per section 917 C of the Corporations Act
( Cth)31 which states that multiple holders of the financial services licences in Australia can be
made simultaneously for the conduct or act of a single authorized representative.
25 Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd [2005] All ER (D) 93 (Oct); [2006] QB 510; [2005]
EWCA Civ 1151.
26 Kelly v Bluestone Global Ltd (in Liq) [2016] WASCA 90 at [63].
27 Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] 3 WLR 1319.
28 Day v Ocean Beach Hotel Shellharbour Pty Ltd [2013] 85 NSWLR 335.
29 Oceanic Crest Shipping Company v Pilbara Harbour Services Pty Ltd [1986] 160 CLR 626.
30 Goudkamp, James, and James Plunkett. "Vicarious liability in Australia: on the move?." Oxford University
Commonwealth Law Journal 17.1 (2017): 162-170.
31 The Corporations Act ( Cth), s. 917C.

8TORT LAW
Thus the question remains as denoted by Sharkey, Catherine M, is that if both the
employers that is the general employer and a particular employer cannot be held responsible
simultaneously, then who can be held liable for the act of such employee32. The position was
analyzed briefly in the case of McDonald v The Commonwealth [1945] 46 SR (NSW) 12933 by
Sir Frederick Jordan CJ together with Halse Rogers and Roper JJ. They held that when the act or
conduct of the employee was beyond the scope of employment by both particular and general
employer, their liability can be determined by considering the nature and extent of control given
to the former or retained by the latter. Usually the general employer is usually made liable and
the liability is not usually transferred to the particular employer. Usually greater the right of
control, greater is the likelihood that it is open to the discretion of the court to determine who has
the control and then the transfer of the liability occurs accordingly. This was discussed by West,
John C34.
Moreover, it was also held by Buckley, Phillip, that with the help of an agreement, the
employers imposes on the third party total or partial control of the employee such that he has the
authority not only to control by directing what is to be done by him but also by what procedure
or method it is to be done by him35. The employee when was acting for or controlled by the third
party, then such third party can be held liable for the act or conduct of such employee. If the third
has only partial control or authority on the employee, such that although the third party has the
right to direct the employee as to what he should do but not has the right to direct how he should
work, then the employer can be made liable. Again, if the third party has no authority to do so,
32 Sharkey, Catherine M. "Institutional Liability for Employees' Intentional Torts: Vicarious Liability as a Quasi-
Substitute for Punitive Damages." Valparaiso University Law Review 53 (2019): 18-35.
33 McDonald v The Commonwealth [1945] 46 SR (NSW) 129 at 132.
34 West, John C. "Vicarious liability: Is it an issue for your organization?." Journal of Healthcare Risk
Management 36.1 (2016): 25-34.
35 Buckley, Phillip. "Barriers to Justice, Limits to Deterrence: Tort Law Theory and State Approaches to Shielding
School Districts and Their Employees from Liability for Negligent Supervision." Loy. U. Chi. LJ 48 (2016): 1015.

9TORT LAW
but still he himself gives special direction to the employee how he should work or act or if the
third party asks the employee to do something beyond his authorized work, and the employee
while complying with such direction causes any injury or loss negligently, then the third party is
to be made liable. Again, if the act of the employee which resulted into injury or loss was
exercised beyond the scope of his employment either by the third party or the employer and there
was neither any express or implied direction given by any of them, then in such situation, the
employee himself will be made liable for the act done by him. Thus the concept of dual vicarious
liability is being expressed in the light of employer and third party for the act of an employee.
This has been discussed in detail by Cole, Jeffrey36.
In this part of the writing, liability for non employees for specially authorized acts has
been discussed. When a person causes a tort to be committed through any other person or even
an animal is responsible as if he had done such act himself. The most common example of it is a
passenger asking a driver to accelerate. In this situation, the passenger jointly with the driver will
be held primarily liable as if he had done the act himself the passenger will be liable without
giving regard to the fact whether such driver was an employee, a volunteer or an independent
contractor as given by Silink, Allison, and Desmond Ryan37.
In more critical cases involving complex situations, like the liability of the directors of a
company for the torts done by company, usually three tests for liability have been introduced.
The first test is the liability where the person directs or acquires the conduct of tort as discussed
in the case of Performing Right Society Ltd v Ciryl Theatrical Syndicate Ltd [1924] 1 KB 138.
36 Cole, Jeffrey. "Agency-Vicarious Liability-Abrogation of the Both Ways Rule." DePaul Law Review 16.2 (2015):
478.
37 Silink, Allison, and Desmond Ryan. "VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS." The
Cambridge Law Journal 77.3 (2018): 458-461.
38 Performing Right Society Ltd v Ciryl Theatrical Syndicate Ltd [1924] 1 KB 1 at 14, 15

10TORT LAW
This is the oldest test and has very wide application. In this test, a director who cast his vote for
an act that forms the tort will be made personally liable. This was observed in the case of Wah
Tat Bank Ltd v Chan Cheng Kum [1975] AC 50739. However, this test is being thoroughly
criticized as it readily does the piercing of the corporate veil particularly in the case of companies
with single director. However, this test is quite popular in Australia as it is applied here very
often but in England, it has very limited application. This test is applied in the cases of C Evans
& Sons Ltd v Spritebrand Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 31740 and Private Parking Services (Vic) Pty Ltd v
Huggard [1996] Aust Torts R 81-39741. Similar observation was also observed by the court in
the case of Hannaford v Stewart [2011] NSWSC 44842.
The second test checks the responsibility of the person who makes the act of tort of its
own without anyone’s instigation or guida.nce. This test has its origin in Canadian cases mainly.
It appears that in the second test, simply giving direction to something to happen will not be
sufficient. It is criticized for being circular and intermediating as seen in the case of Mentmore
Manufacturing Co Inc v National Merchandising Manufacturing Co Inc [1978] 89 DLR (3rd)
19543.
The third and the last test analyzes the liability where the concerned person assumes the
liability of the tortuous act as seen in the case of Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR
51744. This test is newest and is applied very strictly and in the narrowest manner. It originates
from the case of Appeal of Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson of New Zealand where the only director
of a company with on director was exempted from the liability of negligent misrepresentation
39 Wah Tat Bank Ltd v Chan Cheng Kum [1975] AC 507.
40 C Evans & Sons Ltd v Spritebrand Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 317.
41 Private Parking Services (Vic) Pty Ltd v Huggard [1996] Aust Torts R 81-397.
42 Hannaford v Stewart [2011] NSWSC 448 at [318].
43 Mentmore Manufacturing Co Inc v National Merchandising Manufacturing Co Inc [1978] 89 DLR (3rd) 195
44 Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517.

11TORT LAW
which was made by the company to the plaintiff who decided to make dealings with the
company voluntarily as held by Brennan, Michael, et al. In the country of New Zealand, the test
of Trevor Ivory45 has been later treated as not a general test but a test for cases where the plaintiff
and the defendant have dealt with each other in past transactions. This particular test has got
some application in England and very little application in Australia.
In the case of Pioneer Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Lee [2000] FCA 192646, the Justice
Sundberg after going through all the above mentioned tests and their supporting groups stated
that the ‘directs or procures’ is being given support by the clear preponderance of the authority.
In another case of Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd v Dascorp Pty Ltd [2003] 9 VR 17147,
Justice Redlich decided that in spite of absence of any authority that can bind, the directs or the
procures test is often used and regarded as the best test to decide the standard for determining the
liability of directors. It is being held in the same case it was also observed that what is required is
that the director either directs or procures the act that causes or results into the tort.
Similarly, a person can be responsible for any act if he gives ratification of the causing of
the act comprising or resulting into the tort after the fact in the same manner as he would had
been, by the principles of agency, had it been authorized specifically before. This type of
observation was found in the case of Potter v North (1669) 1 Wms Saund 347(c) n4; 86 ER 245
18048.
Another type of vicarious liability has been developed where torts of fraudulent or
negligent misrepresentation, defamation or deceit done by commercial agents who are
45 Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517.
46 Pioneer Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Lee [2000] FCA 1926 at 45.
47 Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd v Dascorp Pty Ltd [2003] 9 VR 171 at [201].
48Potter v North (1669) 1 Wms Saund 347(c) n4; 86 ER 245 180.

12TORT LAW
representing a principal can be a topic of vicarious liability. This category shows the highest
confusion between vicarious liability and agency.
Conclusion:
From the above discussion, it is very clear that though United Kingdom has accepted the
concept of dual vicarious liability and made it applicable in various cases, Australia is yet to do
so in general. It is also seen that the developments in the principle of vicarious liability has given
rise to many concerns and aspects. The controlling and regulating policy for it is yet to be
determined clearly. There are several situations where the doctrine of dual vicarious liability can
be applied but its scope and limits are yet to be tested. It is important specially in the aspect of
employement law where often it is seen there are two employers and confusion appears
regarding the vicarious liability of them towards the tort or negligence committed by employee
working under them. It is high time that Australia adopted this doctrine and put it in to legislation
to make it effective.

13TORT LAW
References:
A. Articles/Books/Journals
Bosse, Douglas A., and Robert A. Phillips. "Agency theory and bounded self-interest." Academy
of Management Review 41.2 (2016): 276-297.
Buckley, Phillip. "Barriers to Justice, Limits to Deterrence: Tort Law Theory and State
Approaches to Shielding School Districts and Their Employees from Liability for Negligent
Supervision." Loy. U. Chi. LJ 48 (2016): 1015.
Cole, Jeffrey. "Agency-Vicarious Liability-Abrogation of the Both Ways Rule." DePaul Law
Review 16.2 (2015): 478.
Dal Pont, G. E. "The Law of Agency." (2018): 155.
Deakin, Simon. "Organisational Torts: Vicarious Liability versus Non-Delegable Duty." The
Cambridge Law Journal77.1 (2018): 15-18.
Goudkamp, James, and James Plunkett. "Vicarious liability in Australia: on the move?." Oxford
University Commonwealth Law Journal 17.1 (2017): 162-170.
Gray, Anthony. "The enterprise risk theory of vicarious liability." Australian Business Law
Review 46.3 (2018): 178-196.
Kleinschmidt, Jens. "Agency and authority of agents." Encyclopedia of Private International
Law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2017. 29-39.
McNay, Lois. "Agency." The Oxford handbook of feminist theory. 2015.

14TORT LAW
Morgan, Phillip. "Vicarious liability for group companies: the final frontier of vicarious
liability?." (2015).
Sharkey, Catherine M. "Institutional Liability for Employees' Intentional Torts: Vicarious
Liability as a Quasi-Substitute for Punitive Damages." Valparaiso University Law Review 53
(2019): 18-35.
Sharkey, Catherine M. "Institutional Liability for Employees' Intentional Torts: Vicarious
Liability as a Quasi-Substitute for Punitive Damages." Valparaiso University Law Review 53
(2019)
Silink, Allison, and Desmond Ryan. "VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS." The Cambridge Law Journal 77.3 (2018): 458-461.
West, John C. "Vicarious liability: Is it an issue for your organization?." Journal of Healthcare
Risk Management 36.1 (2016): 25-34.
B. Cases
A, DC v Prince Alfred College Incorporated [2015] SASC at [179].
C Evans & Sons Ltd v Spritebrand Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 317.
Day v Ocean Beach Hotel Shellharbour Pty Ltd [2013] 85 NSWLR 335
Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew [1949] 79 CLR 370.
Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48 [32].
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Hall Russell & Co Ltd [1989] 1 AC 643 at 686.

15TORT LAW
Greenwood v Commonwealth [1975] VR 859 at 860.
Hannaford v Stewart [2011] NSWSC 448 at [318].
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] 207 CLR 21.
Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd v Dascorp Pty Ltd [2003] 9 VR 171 at [201].
Kelly v Bluestone Global Ltd (in Liq) [2016] WASCA 90 at [63].
Laugher v Pointer [1826] 5 B & C 547 at 558; 108 ER 204 at 208.
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 [81].
Mentmore Manufacturing Co Inc v National Merchandising Manufacturing Co Inc [1978] 89
DLR (3rd) 195
Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11 [29].
Oceanic Crest Shipping Company v Pilbara Harbour Services Pty Ltd [1986] 160 CLR 626.
Performing Right Society Ltd v Ciryl Theatrical Syndicate Ltd [1924] 1 KB 1 at 14, 15.
Pioneer Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Lee [2000] FCA 1926 at 45.
Potter v North (1669) 1 Wms Saund 347(c) n4; 86 ER 245 180.
Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC [2016] HCA 37.
Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37.
Private Parking Services (Vic) Pty Ltd v Huggard [1996] Aust Torts R 81-397.
Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] 226 CLR 161 at [12].

16TORT LAW
Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517.
Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] 3 WLR 1319.
Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd [2005] All ER (D) 93 (Oct);
[2006] QB 510; [2005] EWCA Civ 1151.
Wah Tat Bank Ltd v Chan Cheng Kum [1975] AC 507.
C. Legislation
The Corporations Act 2001 ( Cth).