Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning the liability of Prince Alfred College Incorporated (the College) for the sexual abuse of a student, ADC, by a teacher employed by the College. ADC brought proceedings against the College alleging negligence and breach of statutory duty.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the College was vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its employee, Mr. Peter John Smith, who had abused ADC. This required the Court to determine the scope of the employer's vicarious liability, particularly in circumstances where the employee's conduct was intentional and criminal, and whether the relationship between the College and Mr. Smith was such that the College should be held responsible for his actions.

The High Court held that the College was vicariously liable for the abuse. The Court applied the principles established in *Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc* [2014] UKSC 33, which require an assessment of whether the wrongful act is "so closely connected with acts which the employee is authorised to do" that it may be fairly and properly regarded as done while acting in the ordinary course of employment. The Court found that Mr. Smith's employment as a teacher provided him with the opportunity and the means to abuse ADC, and that the abuse was not merely incidental to his employment but was intrinsically connected to the position of authority and trust he held. The College's failure to adequately supervise and protect students from such abuse, given the nature of its enterprise, also contributed to its liability.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which had found the College liable.