Seal v Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd

Seal v Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd concerned a dispute between Mr Seal and Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. Mr Seal had been employed by Transfield Services and alleged that he had been subjected to bullying and harassment by his supervisor, Mr. Smith, and that this conduct constituted a breach of his employment contract. He sought damages for the alleged breach.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the employer, Transfield Services, was vicariously liable for the conduct of its employee, Mr Smith, in circumstances where the bullying and harassment, while occurring in the course of employment, was not expressly authorised or directed by the employer. The court was required to consider the scope of an employer's vicarious liability for the tortious or contractual breaches of its employees, particularly where the conduct was not for the benefit of the employer.

The High Court, in a joint judgment by French CJ and Crennan J, held that Transfield Services was not vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Smith. Their Honours applied the principles established in *Bugge v Brown* and *Sweeney v Boylan* which require a close connection between the employee's wrongful act and the employment. The court found that while Mr Smith's bullying and harassment occurred during his employment, it was not so closely connected with the work he was employed to do, nor was it done in a manner that could be considered a mode of carrying out his authorised duties. The conduct was a personal failing of Mr Smith and not an act that could be attributed to Transfield Services as a breach of contract.

The appeal was dismissed.