Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Prince Alfred College Incorporated (PAC) against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning a claim brought by a former boarder, ADC, who had been sexually abused by a housemaster, Bain. The dispute centred on whether PAC was vicariously liable for Bain's actions and whether ADC should be granted an extension of time to bring his claim, given the significant delay since the abuse occurred.

The legal issues before the High Court included the principles governing an employer's vicarious liability for the intentional criminal acts of an employee, specifically whether the employment provided the "occasion" for the wrongdoing or placed the employee in a "special position" relative to the victim. Additionally, the Court had to determine the correct approach to exercising discretion for an extension of time in personal injury matters, particularly where there was extraordinary delay, potential deficiencies in evidence due to the passage of time, and the absence or death of witnesses.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court. The Court reasoned that the primary judge had correctly concluded that PAC was not vicariously liable for Bain's abuse. The Court found that while Bain's employment as a housemaster provided him with the opportunity to abuse ADC, his criminal acts were not so closely connected with his employment that they could be considered to have occurred in the course of his employment. The Court also upheld the primary judge's decision to grant an extension of time for ADC to bring his claim, finding that it was just and fair in all the circumstances, despite the delay and evidentiary challenges. The Court noted that the principles of vicarious liability were relevant to assessing the possibility of a fair trial on the merits, which is a key consideration for an extension of time.