De Bruyn v The State of South Australia

The applicant, the State of South Australia, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision concerning an interlocutory application to strike out pleadings. The dispute centred on the legal basis for holding a master liable for the torts of a servant committed in the course of employment, specifically in the context of the Crown.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Crown's liability for a servant's tort was vicarious, meaning the Crown was only liable if the servant was liable and any defence available to the servant would also shield the Crown, or whether the servant's wrong was imputed to the Crown, creating its own liability irrespective of the servant's immunities. A related issue concerned the interaction between the Crown Proceedings Act and various legislative provisions that confer immunities on government boards and offices.

The Court considered the differing views expressed in cases such as *Broom v Morgan* and *Parker v Commonwealth*, noting that in *Darling Island v The Commonwealth*, three judges held that the master's tort was the relevant basis for liability. The applicant argued that this approach supported their ultimate argument. The applicant also contended that the matter was of general importance, presenting an opportunity for the Court to clarify how Crown Proceedings Acts relate to legislation granting immunities to Crown servants and instrumentalities. The Chief Justice questioned the timing of the appeal, suggesting it might be premature before the action had been heard and determined, but acknowledged the point was currently alive and clearly defined.