Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited

[2007] NSWCA 319

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort Law
2. › Vicarious Liability
3. › Employer's liability for intentional torts of employees
4. › Security guards assaulting patron
5. › Whether unauthorised criminal acts so connected with authorised acts as to be improper modes of performing them
6. › Whether assault motivated by personal animosity or done in supposed furtherance of employer's interests
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Inferences from undisputed or established facts
4. › Appellate court in as good a position as trial judge to draw inferences
5. › Warren v Coombes principle

Quick Take

Where security guards assault a patron after removing them from premises, the dominant cause of the assault — not merely its severity — determines whether the employer is vicariously liable. Three factors may indicate the assault was done in the course of employment rather than as an independent act: (1) restraint shown by the guards before the assault despite provocation, (2) statements by the guards after the assault indicating it was done to prevent further trouble, and (3) coordinated conduct by multiple guards suggesting a planned course of action rather than a spontaneous act of personal animosity. The severity of the assault alone does not determine the issue.