Vicarious

Clancy v Plaintiffs A, B, C and D; Bird v Plaintiffs A, B, C and D [2022] NSWCA 119

In the absence of any express authorisation for Mr Bird to make admissions on Ms Clancy’s behalf, and in circumstances where Ms Clancy learned of the charges against her father after his police interview, Mr Bird’s alleged “admissions” were not admissible against Ms Clancy. Section 87(1)(c) of the Evidence Act required the identification of the existence of a “common purpose” at the time that the impugned admissions were made. Those admissions could not have been made “in furtherance of” a common purpose which had not yet come into existence: [114]–[116].

Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd (No 4) [2006] NSWSC 90; R v Dolding (2018) 100 NSWLR 314; [2018] NSWCCA 127; Higgins v R [2020] NSWCCA 149, applied.