Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: GEORGE AND COURTIER PTY LTD v TERREY and ORS [1996] NSWCA 206 Decision date: 03 September 1996
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- George and Courtier Pty Ltd v Terrey [1996] NSWCA 206
- Case
- [1996] NSWCA 206
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
George and Courtier Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident in which the respondent, Mr. Terrey, was injured. The primary issue was whether the appellant, as the employer of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, was vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the driver was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the employer had sufficiently controlled the manner in which the driver performed his duties, or whether the driver was engaged in an activity that was incidental to his employment, thereby establishing vicarious liability.
The Court of Appeal found that the driver was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court reasoned that the driver had deviated from his employment duties for his own personal purposes, and this deviation was not merely incidental to his employment. The principles applied focused on the degree of control the employer exercised over the employee's actions and whether the employee's conduct was so connected with the authorised employment that it could be regarded as an unauthorised mode of doing something authorised.
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court was set aside.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the driver was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the employer had sufficiently controlled the manner in which the driver performed his duties, or whether the driver was engaged in an activity that was incidental to his employment, thereby establishing vicarious liability.
The Court of Appeal found that the driver was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court reasoned that the driver had deviated from his employment duties for his own personal purposes, and this deviation was not merely incidental to his employment. The principles applied focused on the degree of control the employer exercised over the employee's actions and whether the employee's conduct was so connected with the authorised employment that it could be regarded as an unauthorised mode of doing something authorised.
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court was set aside.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.