Brilley v Presidential Security Services of Australia Pty Ltd

In the matter of Brilley v Presidential Security Services of Australia Pty Ltd, the defendant, a security company, appealed a judgment that had been entered against it in a trial for assault and battery committed by one of its employees, a security guard. The plaintiff, who had trespassed onto the premises of a club in the company of others with the intention of committing a robbery, was wounded when the security guard discharged his firearm. The plaintiff and his accomplices fled the scene, and the security guard subsequently fired his weapon at the getaway car. The plaintiff sought compensatory, exemplary, and aggravated damages. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to consider several legal issues, including whether the security guard's actions were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, and whether the plaintiff's trespass and criminal intent affected the outcome. The court also needed to examine the application of Part 7 of the Civil Liability Act 2002, which deals with self-defence and defence of property. Additionally, the court had to determine if an amendment to the damages particulars, proposed at the conclusion of the evidence, was permissible under section 56(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

In its judgment, the court found that the security guard's actions were reasonable and proportionate, given the plaintiff's criminal intent and the threat he posed. The court concluded that the security guard had acted in self-defence, and that the plaintiff's trespass and criminal intent were relevant factors in the assessment of the guard's actions. The court also held that the amendment to the damages particulars was permissible, as it did not alter the nature of the claim or introduce new matters. As a result, the verdict and judgment were entered in favour of the defendant, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the first trial and the re-trial.