Hollis v Vabu

Last updated

Hollis v Vabu
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameHollis v Vabu Pty Ltd
Decided9 Aug 2001
Citation(s) [2001] HCA 44
207 CLR 21
Case opinions
The courier was an employee of Vabu, and therefore vicariously liable to Hollis
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Gaudron Kirby, & Hayne JJ
The courier was Vabu's agent and acted as representative for its contractual obligation, and Vabu is vicariously liable
McHugh J
dissent
Callinan J
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingGleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ

Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (Vabu) was a decision of the High Court of Australia. [1] It is a notable decision in Australian employment law. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

The case is most known for outlining principles determinative of whether a worker should be regarded as an employee or independent contractor.

At issue in the case was a claim in negligence by Hollis against Vabu Pty Ltd. Hollis had been hit by a courier, and asserted that because that courier was an employee of Vabu; the company was vicariously liable. [Note 1] Vabu claimed that the courier was an independent contractor, which would have assisted its argument that only the courier was liable for injury to Hollis. The High Court declared that the courier was an employee of Vabu, and therefore vicariously liable. In doing so, it set out general principles which are relevant to recognition of the employment relationship at Australian common law. [5]

The decision is legally important in Australian Industrial law, one reason being that most legislative provisions under the Fair Work Act apply only if a common law employment relationship is recognised.

Facts

Vabu Pty Ltd conducted a Sydney delivery business named 'Crisis Couriers'. Hollis was a courier with a firm named 'Team Couriers'. In 1994 Hollis was leaving a building in Ultimo in the course of his work. He took two steps onto the footpath, and was struck by a cyclist and knocked to the ground. The cyclist left the scene ignoring Hollis' calls. The cyclist was never identified, but was wearing a green jacket which in gold lettering bore the name of Vabu's business. As a result of the crash, Hollis needed knee surgery, was unable to work for a period, and suffered permanent injury. [6]

Trial judge

Pictured: the UTS Tower in Ultimo, the suburb in Sydney where Hollis was injured Ultimo UTS Tower.JPG
Pictured: the UTS Tower in Ultimo, the suburb in Sydney where Hollis was injured

The trial judge found that the cyclist was employed (in a colloquial sense) by Vabu Pty Ltd, and had been negligent in causing Hollis' injuries. No contributory negligence was made out, and damages were assessed at $176k. [7] He found that Vabu set pay rates with no scope for negotiation. Jobs were allocated to couriers by a fleet controller at Vabu's premises. [8] Vabu also assumed all responsibility for direction, training, discipline, and attire of couriers. Couriers were provided with equipment, which was Vabu's property and included the communication equipment. Couriers were required to wear Vabu's supplied clothing at all times, partly to advertise the company's services. Deductions from pay for insurance were imposed by Vabu on the couriers without opportunity for negotiation. [9]

He also noted that couriers were in a 'take it or leave it' situation regarding pay, and that provisions for insurance excess that couriers were required to pay disincentivized them from reporting accidents. [10]

Despite these findings, the trial judge decided the case for Vabu Pty Ltd. He regarded himself as bound to regard the cyclist as an independent contractor of Vabu, due to a recent NSWCA decision. That case had decided Vabu's couriers were independent contractors in a proceeding under the Superannuation Guarantee Act 1992. [11] [12]

Court of appeal

At appeal, the parties accepted the facts in the Superannuation dispute would apply to the case. Hollis made a concession that the couriers were not employees but independent contractors. The hearing then proceeded on that basis. [13] Hollis was unsuccessful and appealed to the High Court.

Judgment

Majority

The court decided an employment relationship existed between Vabu and its bicycle couriers. [13]

They noted the absence of annual leave, superannuation, and sick leave from any contracts between Vabu and the couriers. Nevertheless, the court said, the relationship between the parties wasn't found 'merely from those contractual terms'. The court instead considered 'the system which was operated thereunder and the work practices imposed by Vabu' as establishing the 'totality of the relationship' between the parties. [14]

In assessing that relationship, the court discussed facts which led to their ultimate finding of an employment relationship. [15] Among these facts were:

The per-delivery remuneration method was also discussed by the court, but it was said this was compatible with an employment finding. [20] The policy consideration of deterrence was also relevant. Vabu knew of dangers to pedestrians yet failed to adopt effective means for couriers to be personally identified. [25]

After noting these factors, the majority distinguished the facts from a similar case in New Zealand. [26] They observed that drivers in that case had 'control over their own chosen area of territory', were responsible for employing relief drivers, held their own licenses, and could profit from their management efforts. Only a minimal amount of control and supervision of drivers was contracted for. [27]

It then concluded by declaring the relationship between Vabu and the courier as being that of employer and employee. Vabu was therefore held vicariously liable for the courier's negligence. [28] The court ordered the trial judge's assessment of $176k be paid to Hollis, and that Vabu bear costs. [29]

Aftermath

It is not publicly known what happened of Hollis following the decision. Crisis Couriers is still in operation in Sydney, but is operated by a different company. [30] [31]

Significance

Pictured: a Foodora rider in Finland. Foodora entered voluntary administration in response to employer liability arising from an application of the Hollis v Vabu decision. Foodora messenger 2.jpg
Pictured: a Foodora rider in Finland. Foodora entered voluntary administration in response to employer liability arising from an application of the Hollis v Vabu decision.

Hollis v Vabu has been cited over 832 times according to LawCite, placing it among the top 200 most cited decisions of the High Court. [2]

The case has proved especially important in cases involving 'gig economy' workers. It was referenced and applied in Joshua Klooger v Foodora Australia Pty Ltd, a first instance Fair Work Commission decision that declared Foodora's Australian riders to be employees in a claim for unfair dismissal. [4] Foodora entered voluntary administration following that decision. [32]

The decision will be of importance to legal claims soon to be brought against the Australian arms of Deliveroo and Uber. [33]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ As a general rule, employees are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees in Australian tort law. See: 207 CLR 21 at 32
  2. ↑ The couriers were required to be at work by 9am, and assigned work by order of the controller. They were unable to refuse work. The court considered it unlikely that the couriers would be able to delegate work or work for other couriers throughout the day.
  3. ↑ Vabu made the couriers wear uniforms bearing the business logo. It emphasized in documents that they were representatives of the company, and regulated their attire and grooming. These measures were done partly by Vabu to ensure advertising of its business.
  4. ↑ Vabu produced pay summaries, and couriers were required to dispute errors by 6pm on the Friday of that week. Couriers were subject to having their entire job's pay deducted if this dispute offended Vabu. Couriers had no scope to bargain for their remuneration rate, and rates were unchanged between 1994 and 1998. Vabu held the last week's pay of couriers for up to six weeks, in anticipation of deductions for overcharges, unpaid cash jobs, or insurance claims. Final cheques would not be processed until all Vabu's property was returned. Property damage and insurance costs were deducted from wages.
  5. ↑ Vabu retained control of the 'allocation and direction' of deliveries, and couriers had 'little latitude'. Their work was allocated by Vabu's fleet controller. They delivered goods in the manner directed. Vabu's business involved the 'marshaling and direction' of the labour of the couriers

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fiduciary</span> Person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation, good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

The 1913 Australian referendum was held on 31 May 1913. It contained six referendum questions and was held in conjunction with the 1913 federal election.

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee.

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

<i>London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on privity of contract.

Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".

Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".

<i>Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd</i>

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 is an English tort law case, creating a new precedent for finding where an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of their employees. Prior to this decision, it had been found that sexual abuse by employees of others could not be seen as in the course of their employment, precluding recovery from the employer. The majority of the House of Lords however overruled the Court of Appeal, and these earlier decisions, establishing that the "relative closeness" connecting the tort and the nature of an individual's employment established liability.

<i>Bazley v Curry</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of vicarious liability where the Court held that a non-profit organization may be held vicariously liable in tort law for sexual misconduct by one of its employees. The decision has widely influenced jurisprudence on vicarious liability outside of Canada.

In labour law, unfair dismissal is an act of employment termination made without good reason or contrary to the country's specific legislation.

<i>Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd</i>

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd[2005] EWCA Civ 1151 is an English tort law and UK labour law case, which held that a worker can have more than one employer at the same time, who will be vicariously liable for the worker.

K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.

The law of agency in South Africa regulates the performance of a juristic act on behalf or in the name of one person by another, who is authorised by the principal to act, with the result that a legal tie arises between the principal and a third party, which creates, alters or discharges legal relations between the principal and a third party. Kerr states that, in legal contexts, the word "agent" is most commonly used of a person whose activities are concerned with the formation, variation or termination of contractual obligations, and that agency has a corresponding meaning. It is the agent's position as the principal's authorised representative in affecting the principal's legal relations with third parties that is the essence of agency.

Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman is an important case in the South African law of agency. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Scott JA, Nugent JA, Ponnan JA, Maya JA and Leach AJA on May 14, 2008. They delivered judgment on September 25. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Boruchowitz J.

<i>Kondis v State Transport Authority</i> Australian High Court case

Kondis v State Transport Authority, was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 16 October 1984. It concerned the liability of an employer for the injury of an employee, and specifically whether the duty of care to provide a safe system of work could be delegated. It had been challenged on the basis that the person whose negligence had directly caused the injury was not actually an employee, but an independent contractor, and the duty of care to provide a safe system of work had been delegated to them at the time of the injury. However, it was found that the duty of care could not be delegated in certain cases, and the employer was found liable.

<i>Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker is a leading Australian judgment of the High Court which unanimously and firmly rejected the proposition that contracts of employment in Australia should contain an implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

<i>Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was an appeal brought by an Australian labour union against a subsidiary of BHP Billiton named BHP Coal Pty Ltd.

<i>Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia.

References

  1. ↑ "Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd". eresources.hcourt.gov.au. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  2. 1 2 "LawCite". www.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  3. ↑ "Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44 - BarNet Jade". jade.io. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  4. 1 2 "Joshua Klooger v Foodora Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 6836 - BarNet Jade". jade.io. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  5. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para [46] - [58]
  6. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 2
  7. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 3
  8. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 4
  9. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 5
  10. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 6
  11. ↑ (1996) 33 ATR 537
  12. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 8
  13. 1 2 207 CLR 21 at para 22
  14. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 24
  15. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 46
  16. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 47
  17. 1 2 207 CLR 21 at para 48
  18. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 49
  19. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para [50] & [52]
  20. 1 2 207 CLR 21 at para 54
  21. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 55
  22. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 56
  23. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 57 - referencing Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 at 29.
  24. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 57
  25. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 53
  26. ↑ [1993] 3 NZLR 681
  27. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 58
  28. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 61
  29. ↑ 207 CLR 21 at para 63
  30. ↑ "Crisis Couriers". www.crisis.com.au. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  31. ↑ "Crisis Couriers - Careers" (PDF). www.crisis.com.au. 11 March 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 October 2020. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  32. 1 2 "Failed food delivery company Foodora loses unfair dismissal case". www.abc.net.au. 16 November 2018. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  33. ↑ "Drive for Uber or Deliveroo? This landmark court case could change your life". www.abc.net.au. 22 October 2020. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.