RC v The Salvation Army (Western Australia) Property Trust

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between RC, a former employee, and The Salvation Army (Western Australia) Property Trust concerning allegations of sexual abuse and assault. RC brought proceedings against the Trust alleging vicarious liability for the actions of a former employee of the Trust, who had allegedly sexually abused RC during RC's childhood.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Trust was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee. This required the Court to determine the principles governing vicarious liability in Australia, particularly in circumstances where the wrongful acts of an employee are not within the scope of their employment, but rather are an abuse of the position they hold. The Court also had to consider the application of these principles to the specific facts of the case, including the nature of the employment and the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim.

The High Court analysed the established principles of vicarious liability, which generally require a sufficient connection between the employee's employment and the wrongful conduct. The Court distinguished between acts that are merely authorised by the employment and acts that are so closely connected to the employment that they can be considered to be within its scope, even if they are wrongful. The Court affirmed that an employer can be held vicariously liable if the employee's conduct, though not authorised, is so closely connected with, or incidental to, the work they were employed to do that it is fair and just to hold the employer liable. The Court found that the relationship between the perpetrator and RC was not merely incidental to the employment but was a direct consequence of the position of trust and authority afforded to the perpetrator by the Trust.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Trust was vicariously liable for the sexual abuse perpetrated by its employee. The matter was remitted to the Federal Court of Australia for determination of the quantum of damages.