Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 11 July 2016 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 11 JULY 2016

HOBART
Ceremonial Sitting

Mr Michael Brett will take his seat as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania at a ceremonial sitting at 10:00 a.m. on Monday 11 July 2016, in the No.1 Civil Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:15 p.m.
For Sentence by video link to Court 1, Launceston
Jodi Dale Williams
Matthew Luke Williams
Derek George Arnol
Dane Lindon Squires

Civil Jurisdiction
To Follow
For Judgment by video link to Court 1, Launceston
Senior Sergeant Luke Moore and anor
v
Aaron Michael Marks

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:15pm For Sentence by video link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jodi Dale Williams
Matthew Luke Williams
Derek George Arnol
Dane Lindon Squires

Civil Jurisdiction
To Follow
For Judgment by video link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Senior Sergeant Luke Moore and anor v Aaron Michael Marks

BURNIE

No list for Burnie.

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Senior Sergeant Luke Moore and another versus Aaron Michael Marks was heard and determined. The dispute centred on the application of the principle of vicarious liability in the context of an alleged assault committed by a police officer during the course of his employment. The court was required to decide whether the police force could be held liable for the actions of their employee. The legal issues included whether the assault met the criteria for vicarious liability and whether the employee's actions were within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident.

The court examined the nature of the employment, the actions of the police officer, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault. It was crucial to determine if the officer's conduct was so closely connected to his employment that it could be said to be within the scope of his duties. The court considered whether the assault was an act done in the course of employment or a frolic of his own. After a thorough review of the evidence and legal principles, the court concluded that the actions of the police officer were indeed within the scope of his employment, thereby establishing vicarious liability on the part of the police force.

Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, holding the police force liable for the assault committed by their employee. The decision underscored the importance of the close connection test in determining vicarious liability in employment-related cases. The court's judgment provided clarity on the application of this principle in the context of police conduct. This ruling sets a precedent for similar cases involving vicarious liability in the future.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 11 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established