Agency; principal's liability for harm caused by agent; unauthorised acts.
Facts: A teacher employed at a remote rural school sexually assaulted young pupils. The pupils sued the school in Negligence.
Issue: In these circumstances, was the school liable in Negligence for the actions of the teacher (an employee)?
Decision: In a majority decision, the High Court held that the school was vicariously liable for the teacher's assaults on the pupils.
Reason: Although different judges expressed their ideas differently, the general principle applied was that there existed a 'sufficient connection' between the teacher's supervisory role over the children and the wrongdoing that had occurred, for vicarious liability to arise.
Note: A minority of the judges disagreed, expressing the view that an employer could only be vicariously liable for the deliberate criminal conduct of an employee if that conduct was clearly intended to be done in pursuit of the employer's interests.