Anastasiou v Chubb Security (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2008] VSC 211

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 9855 of 2005

GEORGE ANASTASIOU	Plaintiff
v
CHUBB SECURITY (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2-6 June, 10, 11 June 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 June 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Anastasiou v Chubb Security (Australia) Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 211

---

NEGLIGENCE – Employer and employee – Security guard injured while evicting drunken patron – Whether safe system of work – Whether adequate training and instruction – Whether contributory negligence – Damages for pain and suffering – Damages for economic loss.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T Tobin SC and Mr N Bird	BJT Legal Pty Ltd
For the Defendant	Mr R Middleton and Ms A Ryan	Wisewoulds

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff claims damages in respect of injuries which he sustained on 7 April 2002 while working as a security guard for the defendant, Chubb Security (Australia) Pty Ltd (“Chubb”) at the Southgate Complex, Southbank.

Background

The plaintiff was born in Cyprus on 12 September 1965. He migrated to Australia with his family at the age of 9, and was educated to Year 11. After being employed in a number of different jobs, he commenced work as a security guard in the early 1990s with Protech Security. Subsequently, he worked with Sterling Security, Westfield, looking after a number of shopping centres. While the plaintiff was working at Westfield, Probe Security bought the business of Sterling Security. The plaintiff continued to work as a security officer at a number of shopping centres including Southland, Doncaster and Airport West. He was mainly stationed at Airport West. While working there he was promoted to a senior guard. He was looking after shops and helping centre management requirements. His duties at that stage did not involve significant crowd control work.

The plaintiff commenced work, while employed with Probe, at Southbank in 1996. He worked rotating shifts, namely, day shift, afternoon shift and night shift. He commenced at Southgate as a retail guard for a couple of years. He was then promoted to the control room, where he worked for a couple more years. In that capacity the plaintiff was monitoring some 32 cameras which were situated throughout the complex. At that time Probe was responsible not only for the security of Southgate, but also for the IBM Tower and the Herald & Weekly Times tower. The plaintiff was working half of his time in the control room, and the other half of his time undertaking patrol duties.

In 2000, the contract which Probe Security had with the proprietors of Southgate was taken over by Chubb. At the same time, Chubb took over a number of the staff who had previously been employed by Probe Security at Southgate, including the plaintiff. At the time of the accident in April 2002, the plaintiff was working as a senior guard.

The plaintiff’s injury occurred when he was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anastasiou v Chubb Security (Australia) Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] VSC 211
Decision Date: 20 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anastasiou v Chubb Security (Australia) Pty Ltd involved a security guard who was injured while evicting a drunken patron from a licensed premises. The plaintiff, Anastasiou, sought compensation from the defendant, Chubb Security (Australia) Pty Ltd, his employer. The primary dispute centred around whether the employer had implemented a safe system of work, provided adequate training and instruction, and whether Anastasiou's own actions contributed to the injury. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the employer breached its duty of care by not providing a safe system of work and adequate training and instruction. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff was contributory negligent in the circumstances that led to his injury, and if so, how this would affect the damages recoverable. Additionally, the court had to assess the appropriate quantum of damages for both pain and suffering, and economic loss.

The court found that the employer had indeed breached its duty by not providing a safe system of work and adequate training. It was determined that the employer failed to adequately prepare Anastasiou for the specific risks associated with evicting intoxicated individuals. The court also found that Anastasiou was contributory negligent but held that this did not bar his claim for damages. The court assessed the damages for pain and suffering and economic loss, taking into account the contributory negligence. Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff a sum for both types of damages, reflecting the findings on liability and contribution.

The final orders included a determination that Chubb Security (Australia) Pty Ltd was liable for negligence and ordered to pay damages to Anastasiou. The court quantified the damages for pain and suffering and economic loss, applying a reduction for contributory negligence. The specific amounts awarded were detailed in the judgment, reflecting the court's assessment of the plaintiff's injuries and losses.

Orders