Case Name: CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman
- Citation: [2023] HCA 21
- Court: High Court of Australia
- Judges: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
- Date of Judgment: 2 August 2023
- Area of Law: Torts – Negligence – Vicarious Liability
This case, heard by the High Court of Australia, involved CCIG Investments Pty Ltd (appellant) and Aaron Shane Schokman (respondent). The primary legal issue was whether CCIG Investments was vicariously liable for the negligent act of its employee, Mr. Hewett, who urinated on Mr. Schokman while they shared employer-provided accommodation.
Key Facts (CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman)
Mr. Schokman was employed as a food and beverage supervisor at Daydream Island Resort and Spa, where his employment contract required him to live in shared staff accommodation.
Mr. Hewett, another employee, was his roommate.
One night, after consuming alcohol, Mr. Hewett unintentionally urinated on Mr. Schokman, triggering a cataplectic attack (a sudden loss of voluntary muscle tone due to emotional stress).
Mr. Schokman sued CCIG Investments, arguing that his employer should be held vicariously liable for the actions of his roommate.
Lower Court Decisions
Trial Court (Supreme Court of Queensland):
The Trial Court found that CCIG Investments was not vicariously liable, ruling that Mr. Hewett’s act was not connected to his employment. Although the employer required shared accommodation, it was not responsible for Hewett’s drunken misadventure.
Court of Appeal (Queensland):
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and ruled in favor of Mr. Schokman. It found that Mr. Hewett’s employment contract obligated him to live in staff accommodation, and this created a sufficient connection between his employment and his wrongful act.
High Court of Australia Decision in CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman
The High Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and ruled in favor of CCIG Investments.
The Court found that Mr. Hewett’s act was not done “in the course or scope of employment”, which is a necessary requirement for vicarious liability.
Even though the employer provided accommodation, it did not control what employees did in their personal time.
The Court clarified that mere opportunity (i.e., employees being housed together) is not enough to impose vicarious liability.
Thus, the High Court allowed the appeal with costs, meaning CCIG Investments was not held liable. The Court of Appeal’s decision was set aside.
Reasoning behind the decision
1. Vicarious Liability: Employers are only responsible for employees’ wrongful acts if those acts occur in the course or scope of employment.
Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, and Jagot JJ stated –
“For an employer to be held liable for the tort of an employee the common law requires that the tortious act of the employee be committed in the course or scope of the employment. In Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC this was described as an essential requirement of the common law. In Bugge v Brown, Isaacs J referred to it as a rule of the law. The necessity for it, as providing the parameters or outer limits of vicarious liability, has never been doubted.” (at p. 12)
2. A Mere Opportunity is not enough: Employment providing an opportunity for a wrongful act is insufficient; the act must be closely connected to employment duties.
In this regard, Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, and Jagot JJ stated –
“…….. consistent with the view stated by Diplock LJ in Morris v C W Martin & Sons Ltd, that for an act to be said to be in the course of employment something more is necessary than that the employment has merely created the opportunity for the wrongful act to take place. And as was observed in Prince Alfred College, this is a view which has been consistently applied.” (at p. 32)
3. Employer’s Duty of Care vs. Vicarious Liability: While an employer may have a duty of care to provide a safe environment, this does not automatically translate into vicarious liability for employees’ personal actions.
Edelman and Steward JJ stated –
“He (Mr. Hewett) did not perform the negligent act at a time and place where his employer was permitted to be present or to monitor him. His employer’s power, set out in the Letter of Appointment provided to employees, to “monitor its offices and employees” did not extend to surveillance of Mr. Hewett on his leisure time or in his personal accommodation.” (at p. 87)
Final words
The case of CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman reinforces the principle that an employer will not be held automatically liable for the personal actions of their employees, even if they provide accommodation. A strict line must be drawn between an employee’s personal actions and the employer’s scope of liability.
References:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2023/21.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW: