Possible Parties to a Civil Dispute (VCE SSCE Legal Studies): Revision Notes
Possible parties to a civil dispute
Introduction to civil disputes and parties
In civil law, disputes arise when one party believes their rights have been infringed by another. Understanding who can be involved in these disputes is essential for identifying potential legal claims.
A civil dispute is a disagreement between two or more individuals (or groups) in which one of the individuals (or groups) makes a legal claim against the other. These disputes can involve multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants.
When a civil claim arises, the parties must consider:
- Who has the right to bring the claim (the plaintiffs)
- Who can be held responsible (the defendants)
Parties to civil disputes can be:
- Individuals (human beings)
- Companies (which are separate legal entities from their directors and managers)
- Government agencies and other bodies
Possible plaintiffs
The plaintiff is the person or group who brings the civil claim to court. There are different types of plaintiffs depending on how they were affected by the wrongdoing.
Aggrieved party
The aggrieved party is the person whose rights have been directly infringed and who has suffered loss as a result. This is the most common type of plaintiff in civil disputes.
The aggrieved party will vary depending on the type of civil claim:
- In contract disputes: The plaintiff is typically one of the parties to the contract who suffered loss because the other party breached the agreement.
- In negligence claims: The plaintiff is the person to whom the defendant owed a duty of care, and who suffered injuries when the defendant breached that duty.
- In trespass or nuisance claims: The plaintiff is the property owner whose rights to use and enjoy their land have been interfered with.
Multiple aggrieved parties
A civil action can involve more than one aggrieved person. This happens when several people have had their rights infringed by the same wrongdoing.
Worked Example: Property owners sue for trespass to land
Polly and Heather jointly own a property in Werribee, Victoria. They built a fence and created an animal sanctuary on their land. Their neighbour Barry regularly walks his five dogs across their property without permission. During these walks, Barry's dogs chase and frighten the animals in the sanctuary. Despite being told repeatedly that he does not have consent to enter their land, Barry continues to trespass. Polly and Heather have now commenced a civil claim against him.
Analysis: In this case, both Polly and Heather are aggrieved parties because they are both joint owners whose property rights have been infringed.
Class actions
A class action (also known as a representative proceeding or group proceeding) is a legal proceeding in which a group of seven or more people who have a claim against the same person based on similar or related facts bring that claim to court in the name of one person.
Class actions allow multiple people with similar grievances to join together rather than bringing separate individual claims. This makes the legal process more efficient and accessible.
Key features of class actions:
- Requires a minimum of seven people with claims against the same party
- The claims must arise from the same or similar circumstances
- One person, called the lead plaintiff (or representative plaintiff), represents the entire group
- The other members are called group members
The lead plaintiff conducts the case on behalf of all group members. If successful, all group members typically benefit from the outcome.
Examples of class actions in Australia:
- Black Saturday bushfires (Victoria, 2009): Multiple victims of the bushfires joined together to claim compensation.
- Uber class action: Taxi drivers who alleged they suffered losses due to the introduction of Uber.
- Falls Festival stampede: Attendees who were injured in a stampede at the festival in Lorne.
- Police capsicum spray: In 2022, protesters alleged that police improperly used capsicum spray at a mining conference in Melbourne in 2019.
Other victims
A plaintiff does not always have to be the person directly harmed by the wrongdoing. In some circumstances, people who suffered indirect loss can also bring claims.
Nervous shock is a psychological reaction—psychological harm that is more serious than ordinary grief or stress. It can form the basis of a claim by someone who was not directly injured.
Examples of other victims who may sue include:
- Family members who suffer loss as a result of a relative's death caused by another person's wrongdoing
- Witnesses who suffer nervous shock after seeing a traumatic event caused by another person's negligence
For instance, if a person witnesses people being badly burnt in an electric explosion caused by another person's negligence, and as a result suffers serious psychological harm (nervous shock), they may be entitled to claim damages for their loss.
Possible defendants
The defendant is the party being sued—the person or entity alleged to have caused the plaintiff's loss. There are several types of defendants in civil disputes.
Wrongdoer
The wrongdoer is the person or company that directly caused the loss to the plaintiff. In many cases, the plaintiff will sue the party most obviously responsible for their harm.
Examples include:
- In unpaid wages claims: The employer who failed to pay the wages
- In nuisance claims: The person causing the interference (such as excessive noise, odour, or sight) that resulted in the plaintiff losing use or enjoyment of their property
Sometimes there may be multiple wrongdoers. When two or more people both contributed to causing the plaintiff's loss, they may both be liable. In other situations, someone may be held responsible even though they did not directly inflict the harm.
Case Study: Bell v Nexus Primary Health [2022] VSC 605
Background: The plaintiff worked for a health service provider, starting as a receptionist and later becoming a family violence outreach worker. In this role, she supported victims of family violence, often visiting their homes and attending court hearings with them. One victim was subjected to serious threats and assaults from her husband.
The Incident: One morning, the plaintiff was violently attacked in a car park while on her way to work. The attacker was believed to be the husband of the victim she was supporting. Following this attack, the plaintiff also received threatening letters and had a brick thrown through her home window. She developed post-traumatic stress disorder and became unable to work, describing the incident as having destroyed her life.
The Claim: The plaintiff sued her former employer, claiming it had negligently failed to remove her from the victim's file and had not adequately protected her from the known risks associated with family violence work. The employer denied the claim, arguing it did not owe a duty to control risks posed by unknown criminals.
Court Findings: In October 2022, the Supreme Court of Victoria found in favour of the plaintiff. The judge ruled that:
- On the balance of probabilities, the attacker was the victim's husband
- The employer had a duty to consider risks to employee safety
- There was a known risk to family violence outreach workers
- The employer had breached its duty of care
Outcome: The court awarded the plaintiff $1.24 million in damages, including:
- General damages of $375,000 (compensation for pain and suffering)
- Compensation for past and future loss of earnings
General damages are a type of remedy that requires the payment of a sum of money to compensate for loss that cannot easily be quantified (e.g., pain and suffering).
Employers and vicarious liability
An employer may become a defendant even if they did not personally cause the harm. This is due to the principle of vicarious liability.
Vicarious liability is the legal responsibility of a third party for the wrongful acts of another (e.g., an employer's liability for what their employees do).
The reasoning behind vicarious liability is that employers have the right, ability, and duty to control their employees' activities. Therefore, if an employee causes harm while undertaking work activities, the employer should be held responsible.
Requirements for vicarious liability:
- There must be an employer-employee relationship
- The employee must have been acting in the course of their employment when the wrong occurred
- There must be a sufficient connection between the wrongful act and the employment
If the employee was acting in an unauthorised way or outside the scope of their employment, the employer may not be liable.
Vicarious liability generally arises in negligence claims, though it can apply to other civil wrongs as well.
Case Study: Oliver v Bassari (Human Rights) [2022] VCAT 329
Background: The applicant worked as a beauty therapist at a male grooming business. During 2018, she alleged that a male colleague engaged in sexually harassing conduct, including:
- Putting his legs between hers
- Making unwanted comments about her body
- Attempting to embrace her
- Deliberately brushing past her
- Making sexual comments and gestures
The Complaints: The applicant made two complaints to her employer during 2018. Despite these complaints, the male employee subsequently sexually assaulted her at the workplace, after which she resigned.
The Tribunal: The case was heard at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)—a tribunal that deals with disputes relating to a range of civil issues heard by various 'lists' (sections), including the Human Rights List, Civil Claims List, and Residential Tenancies List.
VCAT Findings: VCAT found that:
- The employer did not take reasonable precautions to prevent the conduct
- The employer was vicariously liable for the unlawful conduct
- After the second complaint, the employer failed to conduct a proper investigation, which may have prevented the subsequent assault
Remedy Awarded: The applicant sought general damages and compensation for loss of enjoyment of life. She had been attending weekly psychological treatment for symptoms including:
- Flashbacks
- Panic attacks
- Sleep disturbances
- Post-traumatic stress disorder
- Anxiety
VCAT awarded her $150,000 in general damages, noting that the effects of the sexual harassment would persist long-term.
Exam guidance: When analysing vicarious liability in exams, always identify: (1) whether an employer-employee relationship existed, (2) whether the employee was acting in the course of employment, and (3) whether the employer took reasonable steps to prevent the harm. Use the formula: "For X to be vicariously liable, the court must find that Y was acting in the course of employment when..."
Persons involved in wrongdoing (accessorial liability)
A person who did not directly cause the harm may still be sued if they were involved in the wrongdoing. This is known as accessorial liability.
Accessorial liability is the responsibility imposed on one person for the wrongdoing of another, where there is a connection to the wrongdoing (e.g., where the first person encourages the other person to cause harm).
A person may be involved in wrongdoing if they:
- Aided the wrongdoing (helped carry it out)
- Abetted the wrongdoing (assisted or encouraged it)
- Procured the wrongdoing (organised or arranged it)
- Induced or encouraged the wrongdoing
- Were in any way, directly or indirectly, a party to the wrongdoing
- Conspired with others to cause the wrongdoing
For example, if a plaintiff was injured during an armed robbery organised by someone who was not physically present at the scene, that organiser could be considered involved in the wrongdoing and sued by the plaintiff for accessorial liability.
Worked Example: Friend who 'egged on' a mate is sued
The Scenario: Vernon and his friend Harry went out on Saturday night. After drinking, they decided it would be funny to trip people walking past them. They agreed to take turns tripping people.
Walking down Domain Road in South Yarra, Melbourne, Harry tripped the first person, who fell over, and both men ran away laughing. They then approached 30-year-old Gina, who had a sore leg from playing soccer that day. As they walked past, Harry nudged Vernon and said, "your turn". Vernon tripped Gina, who fell and broke her ankle. Gina is suing both Harry and Vernon.
Analysis: In this scenario, Harry could be liable for accessorial liability because he:
- Encouraged Vernon to commit the wrongdoing
- Was a party to the plan to trip people
- Induced Vernon to trip Gina specifically by saying "your turn"
Conclusion: Even though Harry did not physically trip Gina, his involvement in encouraging and participating in the scheme makes him potentially liable alongside Vernon, the actual wrongdoer.
Exam guidance: When identifying accessorial liability, use the mnemonic AIPC: Aided, Induced, Party to, Conspired. In exam answers, explain not just that the person was involved, but specifically how they contributed to the wrongdoing.
Remember!
Key points:
- A civil dispute involves one party making a legal claim against another for infringement of their rights.
- Plaintiffs can be aggrieved parties (those directly harmed), other victims (those indirectly harmed), or groups in class actions (seven or more people with similar claims).
- Defendants can be wrongdoers (those who directly caused harm), employers (through vicarious liability), or persons involved in wrongdoing (through accessorial liability).
- Vicarious liability holds employers responsible for employee actions when employees were acting in the course of employment.
- Accessorial liability applies to people who aided, abetted, induced, or conspired in wrongdoing, even if they didn't directly cause the harm.
Key terms:
- Civil dispute – disagreement where one party makes a legal claim against another
- Aggrieved party – person whose rights were infringed and who suffered loss
- Class action – seven or more people with similar claims joining together
- Vicarious liability – employer responsibility for employee wrongdoing
- Accessorial liability – responsibility for being involved in another's wrongdoing
- Nervous shock – serious psychological harm beyond ordinary grief
- General damages – compensation for losses that cannot be easily quantified
Critical framework: When identifying parties in a civil dispute, ask: (1) Who suffered loss? (2) Who directly caused it? (3) Was anyone else involved or responsible? (4) Were any employers potentially vicariously liable?