Hollis v Vabu
Judgement of the High Court of Australia / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Hollis v Vabu?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (Vabu) was a decision of the High Court of Australia.[1] It is a notable decision in Australian employment law.[2][3][4]
Hollis v Vabu | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd |
Decided | 9 August 2001 |
Citations | [2001] HCA 44 207 CLR 21 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ |
Case opinions | |
The courier was an employee of Vabu, and therefore vicariously liable to Hollis Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Gaudron Kirby, & Hayne JJ The courier was Vabu's agent and acted as representative for its contractual obligation, and Vabu is vicariously liable McHugh J dissent Callinan J |
The case is most known for outlining principles determinative of whether a worker should be regarded as an employee or independent contractor.
At issue in the case was a claim in negligence by Hollis against Vabu Pty Ltd. Hollis had been hit by a courier, and asserted that because that courier was an employee of Vabu; the company was vicariously liable.[Note 1] Vabu claimed that the courier was an independent contractor, which would have assisted its argument that only the courier was liable for injury to Hollis. The High Court declared that the courier was an employee of Vabu, and therefore vicariously liable. In doing so, it set out general principles which are relevant to recognition of the employment relationship at Australian common law.[5]
The decision is legally important in Australian Industrial law, one reason being that most legislative provisions under the Fair Work Act apply only if a common law employment relationship is recognised.