Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21

You are here:
< Back
  • Hollis was hit by a bicycle courier wearing the uniform of Vabu, tried to sue with vicarious liability
  • Was the courier an employee?
  • You must look at the whole situation, not just the control test
  • Consider factors such as the following;
  • “The job allocated to the worker involves a low level of skill.
  • The worker has little control over how he may do his job, the hours of his job or the conditions.
  • The worker is presented to the general public as a part of the defendant’s organisation (for example, uniform).
  • It seems as though the Defendant should be deterred from carelessness through the imposition vicarious liability.
  • The worker’s payment scheme or holiday schemes are managed by the Defendant.
  • The worker’s equipment is provided and maintained by the Defendant.
  • The job performed by the worker is a main job of the Defendant and not some supplementary side task.”

-- Download Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21 as PDF --

FavoriteLoadingSave this case