Case Study: Hollis V VabuTable of ContentsIntroduction 3Case Summary 3Facts 3Issues 3Ratio 3Decision 4Critical Analysis 4Business Implications 5Legal Implications 6Conclusion 6Bibliography 7Appendix † Research Plan 8IntroductionThe Case of Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] upholds the long-standing doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees in the course of their employment. In comparison with cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of the common law to changing social conditions, the case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd This case can be seen as a step backwards in affirming the traditional notion of “control” when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyze the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevailing in this case. On December 22, 1994, Mr. Hollis was struck on the sidewalk by a cyclist as he was leaving an apartment building in Ultimo. The unidentified cyclist was wearing a green jacket with “Crisis Couriers” printed on it. The accident left Mr Hollis with a permanent 25 per cent deficit in his knee, requiring surgery and rendering him unfit for work for a period. Mr Hollis sued Vabu Pty Ltd, claiming the company was vicariously liable for its employee's negligence. Issues The High Court focused primarily on the nature of the employment relationship between Vabu Pty Ltd and its court...... middle of paper... ...eddes, R & Hammer, D (2005) Making the law. 6th ed. Sydney: LexisNexis[5] CATANZARITI, Joe, “What's in a Name? The distinction between independent contractor and employee revisited”, Law Society Journal 39(9) October 2001: 46-47[6] Australian Air Express Pty Ltd v Langford 41183/03, 2006 NSWCA 96[7] US v Silk (1946) 3331 US [8] Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co. of Australia Ltd (1919) 26 CLR 110[9] Quarman v Burnett (1840) 6 M & W 499[10] Vabu Pty Ltd v Federal Tax Commission (1996) 33 ART 537[11] CHIN, David, 'Employees or Independent Contractors?', Law Society Journal 39(11) December 2001: 68-71[12] CURRAN, Simon, 'When is a duck not a duck? The employee/independent contractor dichotomy”, Bulletin (Law Society of SA) 26 (9) October 200etin (Law Society of SA) 26 (9) October 2004: 23-26