A nightclub owner and licensee are vicariously liable for a security officer's assault on a patron committed immediately after removal from the premises, where the assault was committed in the belief that the employer's interests were being furthered and there was a close temporal and causal connection to the authorised duty of removing disorderly patrons. The severity of the assault does not take it outside the scope of employment where the employee's purpose was to serve the employer's interests rather than to act out of personal vindictiveness.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.