Australia: Is actio per quod still available in Australia?

Litigation Update
Last Updated: 14 October 2012
Article by Neil Thomson and Norman Abrams


If you think actio per quod is a spell taught at Hogwarts, you better read on.

A couple of the issues before the High Court in Barclay v Penberthy [2012] HCA 40 (delivered 2 October 2012) have kept very few litigators awake at night in recent decades, but were of critical importance to the parties:

  • Is the 1808 English case of Baker v Bolton1good law in Australia? Yes.
  • Is actio per quod servitium amisit (per quod)still available in Australia? Yes.

Two other critical issues in the case were:

  • Whether a party was "vulnerable" in the sense that it could bring a claim for pure economic loss. Yes, with a strong dissent from Heydon J.
  • Whether a party could argue a cause of action, per quod, which had not been pleaded or argued properly, or at all, in the courts below. Yes, with a strong (and again, with respect, compelling) dissent from Heydon J.


On 11 August 2003, a twin-engine aircraft crashed near Jandakot Airport in Western Australia due to the failure of its right engine on take-off. Two passengers were killed. The remaining three passengers and the pilot survived. All passengers were employees of Nautronix Limited (Nautronix), a marine communications technology company, which had chartered the aircraft from Fugro Spatial Solutions Pty Ltd (Fugro). The aircraft had been especially modified for the purpose of conducting testing of Nautronix's technology and for carrying the Nautronix employees directly involved in the testing.

The pilot, Mr Penberthy, was employed by Fugro. He was found negligent at first instance for the decisions he made in flight after the engine failed, which contributed to the accident. Another contributing factor was a faulty replacement bearing in the right engine. The bearing had been designed locally by Mr Barclay, an approved aeronautical engineer, and installed approximately three years before the accident. Its specifications were different to the original bearing installed by the aircraft manufacturer. At first instance, Mr Barclay was also found to be negligent for the design specification of the faulty bearing.

There were three issues examined on appeal to the High Court:

  • First, Nautronix brought actions for damages against Fugro and its pilot, Mr Penberthy, in negligence and in contract. The damage claimed was in the nature of pure economic loss. The issue was whether Mr Penberthy (and Fugro vicariously) owed a duty of care to avoid the pure economic loss flowing from the loss of services of the three injured employees.
  • Second, Nautronix brought a claim in negligence for pure economic loss flowing from the loss of the two deceased employees. The issue was whether the rule in Baker v Bolton, which would preclude an action where the tort resulted in death, should be overruled.
  • Finally, Nautronix brought an action in per quod against Fugro, Mr Penberthy and Mr Barclay for the loss of its employees' services. The issue was whether the principle of per quod continued to remain part of the common law, and if so, what the measure of damages was.


The court unanimously held that the action per quod still forms part of the common law of Australia and that, if it was permissible for Nautronix to argue the cause of action, the defendants would be liable. The majority held that the action was available. Heydon J considered it impermissible to allow the action per quod to be pleaded, given the way the proceedings ran.

The principle of per quod can be traced to medieval times. It allowed a master to claim for the loss of his servant, in which it was said he had a quasiproprietary interest, so long as the tortfeasor acted negligently or intentionally towards the servant. The appellants submitted that per quod should be absorbed into the law of negligence and should now not constitute a distinct cause of action.

In negligence generally, no liability arises for breach of a duty of care unless damage is suffered by the person to whom the duty was owed. The appellant argued that an action per quod is an exception to this general rule because the tortfeasor does not owe a duty to the person trying to recover. With the developments of the law of negligence, it was argued this exception should not constitute a separate cause of action and should instead be subsumed by the law of negligence.

The court disagreed that an action per quod is an exception to the general rule of negligence. It is wholly distinct from negligence because a duty of care is owed to the employee and not the employer. A breach of the duty to the employee is the foundation of a claim in negligence. But if the employer is to recover, he must pursue a separate cause of action that is not grounded in principles of proximity of damage resulting from breach of duty of care.

An action per quod provides a remedy where there is a wrongful invasion of the employer's quasiproprietary right held concerning the services his servant is obliged to provide to him. An infringement of that right entitles the master to recover damages.

For these reasons, the majority declined to subsume the principle of per quod into the general law of negligence.

Heydon J added further support to the majority's refusal to abolish an action per quod. His Honour considered that per quod had not been pleaded at trial and that, therefore, it could not be argued on appeal. However, His Honour stated that the action per quod could not be "absorbed back" into general principles of negligence because it was older than the tort of negligence and did not derive from it. If it is antiquated and anomalous in today's society, His Honour stated that this is for the legislature to resolve.

Heydon J finally considered that it would be inappropriate to abolish per quod as a cause of action on the present appeal because it had never been pleaded at trial. To do so would be to deal with a hypothetical question.


Nautronix claimed damages for pure economic loss for the loss of the services of the three injured employees. This is a significant part of the quantum of what is sought to be recovered in the litigation. It further sought to claim for losses suffered as a result of the two deceased employees. To do so, it argued that Baker v Bolton should be overruled.

The rule in Baker v Bolton states that "the death of a person cannot constitute a cause of action giving rise to a claim for damages". The plaintiff argued that the rule made it "cheaper to kill than to maim" and that it was an inappropriate principle considering changing societal conditions.

The court decided that there was considerable authority, both in Australia and overseas, that endorsed the rule in Baker v Bolton. It would be a significant step to overrule it, especially in view of the High Court's decision in Woolworths Ltd v Crotty 2 , which affirmed the rule. The court considered that it is for the legislature to alter the scope of the rule.


An interesting procedural point arose in the case. Of all the issues per quod took up a significant amount of the High Court's deliberation. This cause of action is not mentioned in Murray J's judgment (the trial judge), and is opaquely referred to in the Court of Appeal's judgment. Why? Because it wasn't pleaded or argued in the courts below.

As Heydon J commented: "…actio per quod servitium amisit was distinctly raised for the first time only in (the High) Court."3

All High Court judges agreed that a cause of action can be legitimately raised for the first time in an appeal, provided there is no specific injustice to the other parties. The plurality found that there was no such injustice here. Heydon J, dissenting, found that evidence concerning the relationship between Nautronix and its personnel could have been given at trial, which may have defeated the per quod claim.

This case is strong authority for the proposition that where it is not injustice to the parties, a new or expanded pleading can be introduced at the appeal stage.


As discussed above, the court found that an action per quod still exists in Australia. The plurality further found that Nautronix was entitled to rely on the action in this litigation. Mr Barclay and Mr Penberthy were found to be liable to Nautronix in the action per quod. The tort was established for the loss of services of the employees of Nautronix who were injured in the plane crash. This did not constitute a finding of negligence against Mr Barclay and Mr Penberthy as far as Nautronix is concerned. Per quod is a tort but does not form a part of the law of negligence. The court also very narrowly reduced the scope of the entitlement to recover damages for loss of services.


At first instance, Nautronix claimed damages for pure economic loss as against Mr Barclay and Mr Penberthy, such loss arising from the injuries to its key personnel in the accident. To succeed, Nautronix needed to establish that either or both Mr Barclay and Mr Penberthy owed it a duty of care and further that it was "vulnerable" in that it could not protect itself from the foreseeable harm of their negligence.

The trial judge, Murray J 4 , found that Mr Barclay did not owe Nautronix a duty of care, because Mr Barclay could not have foreseen Nautronix's losses. As designer of the specifications of the defective part, Mr Barclay's duty of care was limited to the passengers on the plane and the owners of the plane.

Murray J found that Mr Penberthy did owe a duty of care and that Nautronix was vulnerable. The finding against Mr Penberthy was undisturbed by the Court of Appeal and the High Court. Heydon J dissented. Heydon J found that in the absence of evidence that Nautronix could not have negotiated a warranty, it had not proved that it was vulnerable. His Honour said: "The sole answer of Nautronix was that there was no evidence that it could have negotiated for itself 'a watertight contractual warranty' from Fugro. But that impermissibly reverses the burden of proof" 5.

The Court of Appeal overturned the finding in favour of Mr Barclay and found him liable for Nautronix's pure economic loss. Interestingly, even though the Court of Appeal found unanimously against Mr Barclay on this point, it was considered so weak that it was abandoned by Nautronix by the time of the High Court appeal so that Barclay succeeded in being found to have no liability to Nautronix for the significant pure economic loss claim.

Findings on Pure Economic Loss
Court Party Duty of Care Owed to Nautronix? Was Nautronix Vulnerable ?
WA Supreme Court Mr Penberthy Yes Yes
Mr Barclay No No
WA Court of Appeal Mr Penberthy Yes Yes
Mr Barclay Yes Yes
High Cour Mr Penberthy Yes Yes
Mr Barclay Claim abandoned before hearing


The damages available for the cause of action have been severely limited by the decision in Barclay v Penberthy. The court held that damages for an action per quod extend only to the cost of replacing the employee less the wages that would have been paid to the injured employee. This is a limited right to recover for loss of services.

The court quoted the principle set out in the New Zealand decision Attorney-General v Wilson and Horton Ltd 6 [1973] NZLR 238 which stated that, because "a wrong done to the master is an interference with his right to the services of his servant, the damages recoverable should be measured exclusively by the consequences which follow from that interference." The damages should "not be widened to include all consequences which follow merely from the fact that the servant was injured." The court further examined the case law in this area and concluded that lost profits resulting from an employee's injuries cannot be recovered in an action per quod.

Thus, employers should bear this limited utility in mind when considering damages claims for loss of the services of their employees.


As a result of this decision we would not be surprised to see the occasional action per quod pursued where legislation has not abolished the right to do so. With the additional limitation on the right to recover damages for this tort, there should be no fear of floodgates.

We think that allowing the per quod claim to be argued in the High Court without it being ventilated in the courts below could potentially lead to more cases being decided on appeal on issues that may fall outside the pleadings – provided there is no prejudice to the other parties.


1 (1808) 1 Camp 493 [170 ER 1033]
2 (1942) 66 CLR 603
3 [2012] HCA 40 at par 96
4 Cifuentes v Fugro Spatial Solutions Pty Ltd [2009] WA SC 316 of 322
5 [2012] HCA 40 at 87
6 [1973] NZLR 238

© DLA Piper

This publication is intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. It is not intended to be, and should not used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. DLA Piper Australia will accept no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication.

DLA Piper Australia is part of DLA Piper, a global law firm, operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information, please refer to

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.