Abu-Ali v Rubino Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Inbloom Florist

The plaintiff, Abu-Ali, brought an action against the first defendant, Rubino Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Inbloom Florist, and the second defendant, an employee of the first defendant, after she was struck by a trolley loaded with flowers while shopping at the first defendant's business. Abu-Ali alleged that the trolley was pushed by the second defendant, who failed to keep a proper lookout, resulting in her injuries. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issues were whether the first defendant was vicariously liable for the second defendant's negligence, and whether the second defendant was entitled to indemnity from the first defendant. Additionally, the court had to determine the quantum of damages and the apportionment of costs.

The court examined the relationship between the first and second defendants to ascertain whether it was one of employment, agency, or independent contract. The court found that the second defendant was an employee of the first defendant, and thus, the first defendant was vicariously liable for the second defendant's negligence. The court also found that the first defendant was required to indemnify the second defendant for any liability to the plaintiff. The court considered contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and determined the appropriate quantum of damages. Finally, the court addressed the issue of costs, awarding the plaintiff costs against the first and second defendants and the second defendant costs against the first defendant on an indemnity basis.

In summary, the Supreme Court of Victoria found both defendants liable to the plaintiff for damages in the amount of $18,068.90. The first defendant was held vicariously liable for the second defendant's negligence, and the second defendant was entitled to indemnity from the first defendant. The first and second defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings jointly and severally on the ordinary basis. The second defendant was also awarded costs against the first defendant on an indemnity basis.