Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: LASAITIS v EMAIL LTD [1990] NSWCA 113 Decision date: 23 May 1990
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Lasaitis v Email Ltd [1990] NSWCA 113
- Case
- [1990] NSWCA 113
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The New South Wales Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Mr Lasaitis against a decision of the District Court. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Email Ltd, was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee, who was driving a vehicle owned by Email Ltd at the time of the accident.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the driver of the vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment with Email Ltd at the time of the collision. This involved determining whether the driver's actions, which occurred during a period when he was travelling to a social function, could be considered an act done in the course of his employment, thereby rendering Email Ltd vicariously liable.
The Court of Appeal considered the established principles of vicarious liability, particularly the test of whether the employee's conduct was so closely connected with acts the employee was authorised to do that it could be considered an unauthorised mode of doing an authorised act. The Court found that the driver's attendance at the social function, even though it was for the benefit of the company and involved employees, was not an act authorised by Email Ltd. Therefore, the driver was not acting in the course of his employment when the accident occurred. The appeal was dismissed.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the driver of the vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment with Email Ltd at the time of the collision. This involved determining whether the driver's actions, which occurred during a period when he was travelling to a social function, could be considered an act done in the course of his employment, thereby rendering Email Ltd vicariously liable.
The Court of Appeal considered the established principles of vicarious liability, particularly the test of whether the employee's conduct was so closely connected with acts the employee was authorised to do that it could be considered an unauthorised mode of doing an authorised act. The Court found that the driver's attendance at the social function, even though it was for the benefit of the company and involved employees, was not an act authorised by Email Ltd. Therefore, the driver was not acting in the course of his employment when the accident occurred. The appeal was dismissed.
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.