CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning a claim for vicarious liability. The appellant, CCIG Investments Pty Ltd, was the employer of the respondent, Mr Schokman. The dispute arose from a tortious act committed by another employee, Mr Hewett, who negligently urinated on Mr Schokman while he was sleeping, causing him to suffer a cataplectic attack. This incident occurred in shared accommodation that Mr Hewett was required to occupy as a term of his employment with the appellant.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Mr Hewett's wrongful act was committed in the course or scope of his employment, thereby rendering his employer, CCIG Investments Pty Ltd, vicariously liable for the resulting injury to Mr Schokman. This required the Court to consider the connection between Mr Hewett's employment and his tortious conduct, and whether that connection was sufficiently close to justify imposing vicarious liability on the employer.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal. The Court reasoned that for vicarious liability to arise, the employee's tortious act must be committed in the course or scope of employment. While the trial judge had found no sufficient connection, the Court of Appeal had considered the situation analogous to *Bugge v Brown*, finding the requisite connection because Mr Hewett was occupying the accommodation as an employee pursuant to his contract. However, the High Court ultimately determined that Mr Hewett's drunken misadventure with respect to his toileting, even in the context of required shared accommodation, was not sufficiently connected to his employment to establish vicarious liability. The Court concluded that the employer was not vicariously liable for the employee's negligent act.