Karimi v Allied Security Group Pty Limited & Anor; Karimi v Rooty Hill RSL Club Limited & Ors

The applicants, Mr. Karimi, brought proceedings against Allied Security Group Pty Limited and its employee, Mr. Smith (the first respondents), and Rooty Hill RSL Club Limited and its employee, Mr. Davies (the second respondents). Mr. Karimi alleged that he was unlawfully detained and assaulted by security personnel employed by both the first and second respondents at the Rooty Hill RSL Club. The proceedings were heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the High Court concerned the scope of vicarious liability for the actions of security guards. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the security companies and the RSL Club were vicariously liable for the alleged unlawful detention and assault committed by their respective employees. This involved an examination of the relationship between the employers and the security guards, and whether the guards' actions were so connected with their employment that they could be considered to have been committed in the course of that employment.

The High Court considered the principles of vicarious liability, particularly the "close connection" test established in *New South Wales v Lepore*. This test requires an assessment of whether the employee's conduct, even if wrongful, was so closely connected with the acts the employee was authorised to do that it could be regarded as an unauthorised mode of doing an authorised act. The court analysed the nature of the security guards' duties, which included maintaining order and detaining individuals suspected of misconduct. It was held that the alleged unlawful detention and assault, while not authorised, were so closely connected to the performance of the guards' duties that the employers could be held vicariously liable. The court found that the guards' actions, though wrongful, were not so disconnected from their employment as to break the chain of vicarious responsibility.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the first respondents were vicariously liable for the actions of Mr. Smith. However, the appeal against the second respondents was dismissed, as the court found that the actions of Mr. Davies were not sufficiently connected to his employment to establish vicarious liability on the part of Rooty Hill RSL Club Limited.