Case Title: Coles Myer Ltd v Webster
- Citation: [2009] NSWCA 299; (2009) Aust. Torts Reports 82–033
- Court: New South Wales Court of Appeal
- Judges: Justices Ipp JA, Hodgson JA, and Handley AJA
- Year: 2009
- Areas of Law: Tort Law—specifically, False Imprisonment and Defamation
What is the case about?
The case of Coles Myer Ltd v Webster [2009] NSWCA 299 is a significant decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal concerning the tort of false imprisonment. The court examined the circumstances under which a party who provides information to the police, leading to another person’s wrongful detention, can be held liable for false imprisonment.
Facts (Coles Myer Ltd v Webster)
Two plaintiffs visited a store operated by Coles Myer Ltd, where they had a disagreement with the store manager regarding the return of purchased goods. Subsequently, the manager falsely reported to the police that the plaintiffs had attempted to use stolen credit cards. Acting on this information, police officers located the plaintiffs, escorted them to a loading zone within the mall, and detained them for approximately one hour. During this time, the plaintiffs were questioned and subjected to a strip search. The officers eventually released them without charges upon determining there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
Legal Issues that arose
The central issue was whether the store manager’s actions in providing false information to the police constituted active promotion or causation of the plaintiffs’ imprisonment, thereby rendering Coles Myer vicariously liable for false imprisonment.
Court’s Findings in Coles Myer Ltd v Webster
Justice Ipp JA, delivering the judgment, emphasized that liability for false imprisonment can extend to individuals who are active in promoting and causing the imprisonment. The court distinguished between merely providing information to the police and actively procuring an arrest. In this case, the manager’s deliberate and false accusations directly led to the plaintiffs’ detention. Therefore, the manager’s conduct was deemed to have “caused and procured the wrongful detention of the plaintiffs.”
In other words, the manager was found to have been “active in promoting and causing” the imprisonment, thereby establishing the necessary directness for liability. Consequently, Coles Myer Ltd was held vicariously liable for the manager’s actions.
Key Legal Principles
The case is established on the following legal principles:
Directness in False Imprisonment: A defendant can be held liable if they actively promote or cause the imprisonment, even if the physical act of detention is carried out by another party (police in this case). This principle distinguishes between merely providing information to authorities and instigating the detention.
Vicarious Liability: An employer can be held responsible for the wrongful acts of its employees if those acts are committed within the scope of employment. In this case, the manager’s actions, performed in the course of her duties, rendered Coles Myer Ltd liable.
List of references:
- https://www.studocu.com/en-au/document/university-of-newcastle-australia/torts-part-a/torts-a-summary-lecture-notes-1-12/7530309
- https://www.coursesidekick.com/law/13713437
- https://www.coursehero.com/file/38196672/Week-6-Slides-False-Imprisonment-2-2pptx/
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/14303-sample.pdf
- https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-10/4._civil_liabilities_for_human_rights_violations_australia.pdf
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW: