Ffrench v Sestili; Sestili v Triton Underwriting Insurance Agency P/L

(2007) 98 SASR 28; [2007] SASC 241

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort Law
2. › Vicarious Liability
3. › Course of employment
4. › Intentional criminal conduct of employee
5. › Close connection test
6. › Whether fraudulent misuse of credit card entrusted for authorised shopping was within course of employment
7. › Whether employer vicariously liable for carer's theft from disabled client
1. Tort Law
2. › Vicarious Liability
3. › Course of employment
4. › Intentional criminal conduct of employee
5. › Scope of employment where employee has wide discretion
6. › Whether acquisition of confidential information by carer while in client's home was within course of employment
7. › Whether employer liable for misappropriation from account whose PIN was surreptitiously obtained
1. Tort Law
2. › Vicarious Liability
3. › Course of employment
4. › Prohibition by employer
5. › Whether instruction not to misuse confidential information limited sphere of employment or merely regulated conduct within it
1. Insurance
2. › Public liability insurance
3. › Property damage
4. › Loss of tangible property
5. › Whether money withdrawn from ATM constitutes tangible property
6. › Whether misappropriation of funds from bank account is loss of tangible property

Quick Take

An employer of a carer for a disabled person is vicariously liable for the carer's fraudulent misappropriation of the client's money where the carer was entrusted with the client's credit card for authorised shopping duties, including where the carer surreptitiously obtained PINs for other accounts while in the client's home in the course of employment. Money withdrawn from an ATM constitutes tangible property for the purposes of a public liability insurance policy covering loss of tangible property. The expression 'in connection with the business' in an insurance policy has a wide import and is satisfied where the employer is vicariously liable for the employee's conduct.