Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

9-2026

Abstract

The rule that an organisation may be held vicariously liable for a tort committed by a tortfeasor who is not its traditional employee, but whose relationship is nonetheless "akin to employment" (commonly known as the "quasi-employee doctrine"), has been accepted only in obiter dicta in Singapore. In Bird v DP, the High Court of Australia rejected the quasi-employee doctrine. Bird may therefore provide impetus for the Singapore courts to do the same. This article argues, however, that the quasi-employee doctrine should be retained for four reasons. First, it enables unincorporated associations to be appropriately held vicariously liable. Second, the Singaporecourts are institutionally competent to accept the doctrine. Third, the formalistic reasoning adopted by the High Court of Australia in rejecting the quasi-employee doctrine in Bird is inconsistent with Singapore's existing multifactorial approach to determining employment relationships. Fourth, the quasi-employee doctrine ensures that vicarious liability remains relevant in the contemporary era.

Keywords

vicarious liability, quasi-employee doctrine, tort law, relationship akin to employment

Discipline

Labor and Employment Law | Torts

Publication

Singapore Comparative Law Review

First Page

293

Last Page

316

Download

Share

COinS