Who pays for a cash robbery?

Cash might be king, but the question of who's responsible if any goes missing in transit was considered in a recent appeal to the South Australian Supreme Court.

Earlier this week, the firm Cash Logistics which, as its name implies, collects cash from businesses and transports it to banks or other financial institutions, successfully argued that liability for loss of cash could be pushed out to a subcontractor.

Cash Logistics subcontracts some of its work to independent contractors, including the conveyance of cash from the premises of Chambers Cellars to its bank.

On two occasions in 2014 employees of one of its subcontractors were robbed. As a result, more than A$120,000 in cash belonging to Chambers Cellars was stolen while in transit to the bank after being collected by employees of the contractor.

Cash Logistics reimbursed its client, Chambers Cellars, and then went after its own contractor for the balance - more than $95,000.

As for the contractor, it had agreed to provide the secure transport of cash from clients of Cash Logistics to their financial institutions and, in the absence of proof that the thefts occurred without negligence on its part, denied liability on the basis that it had not contracted with Chambers Cellars.

The court saw things differently , with the judgment noting a clear contractual relationship between Cash Logistics and Chambers, which was extended to the contractor by virtue of the agreement.

How and why the same cash transit firm was robbed twice on the same pick-up route was not explained.