Ccig Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman

CCIG Investments Pty Ltd sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the principles of vicarious liability. The applicant argued that the case presented an opportunity for the Court to clarify the "course or scope of employment" test, moving away from intuitive conclusions towards a more principled, case-by-case analysis. The core of the dispute revolved around whether an employer could be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of an employee, even when those acts were not directly authorised or part of the employee's primary duties, but occurred during periods of necessary accommodation or rest related to remote or itinerant work.

The legal issues before the Court included determining the sufficiency of the connection between an employee's tortious conduct and their employment to justify holding the employer vicariously liable. Specifically, the Court was asked to consider whether the mere provision of accommodation, or the necessity for an employee to reside at a remote worksite, was sufficient to render the employer liable for all actions occurring during off-duty hours. The applicant contended that such a broad approach lacked jurisprudential limits and risked imposing liability based on fairness rather than established legal principle, arguing that the tortious act must bear a sensible relation to the activities for which the employee was engaged.

The applicant's submissions emphasised that the tortious act must have a "sensible relation" to the employment, distinguishing this from situations where an employee's conduct is entirely unrelated to their work. They argued that while the Canadian and English approaches, such as the one in *Bazley v Curry*, might offer guidance, the Australian common law required a more direct focus on the specific act and its connection to the scope of employment. The respondent, conversely, argued that the connection was sufficient because the employee was required to be in the provided accommodation for the purposes of his employment, and the tortious act, such as using a toilet, was an inevitable and necessary incident of human existence during that period. The respondent also pointed to contractual obligations regarding health and safety and avoiding disrepute as further connecting the employee's conduct to his employment.

The High Court ultimately granted special leave to appeal. The proceedings recorded indicate that the Court was considering whether the existing tests for vicarious liability adequately addressed situations involving remote work and employer-provided accommodation, and whether the tortious conduct of an employee occurring during off-duty hours, but necessitated by the employment conditions, could be attributed to the employer. The Court's final orders are not detailed in this transcript, as it pertains to the application for special leave to appeal.