Resi Corporation v Sinclair

Resi Corporation (the appellant) sought to appeal a decision concerning the Crown's immunity from suit. The dispute involved whether the Crown, as a State instrumentality, could be held liable for its own tortious conduct or vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, and whether it could be sued in the courts. The matter was heard by Heydon and Hodgson JJA, and Ipp AJA.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Crown, through its instrumentalities, retained immunity from suit for tortious liability, and if so, to what extent. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Crown could be sued for its direct tortious acts and whether it could be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by its employees in the course of their employment.

The Court of Appeal considered the historical development of Crown immunity and its application in modern Australian law. It affirmed that the Crown, as a State instrumentality, is generally subject to the law and can be sued in the courts for its tortious conduct, both direct and vicarious. The court reasoned that the principle of Crown immunity, in its absolute form, had been significantly eroded by legislation and judicial interpretation, and that the Crown should not be placed in a more advantageous position than a private individual or corporation when it engages in activities that could give rise to tortious liability.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was ultimately dismissed with costs.