O'Connell v 1st Class Security P/L - [2012] QDC 100

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

O’Connell v 1^st Class Security P/L [2012] QDC 100

PARTIES:

JOSEPH DANIEL O’CONNELL
(Plaintiff)

V

1^ST CLASS SECURITY PTY LTD (ACN 122 240 251)
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 3003/10

DIVISION:

Civil Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7, 8, 9 December 2011 and written submissions to 15 May 2012

JUDGE:

Andrews SC, DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $ 44,318.54. COSTS RESERVED

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – where bouncer tried to assist police as they were performing an arrest - whether bouncer breached duty to exercise reasonable care in the performance of duties as a security officer.

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE - BATTERY – STATUTORY DEFENCES FOR INJURING OTHERS WHILE ASSISTING POLICE – whether plaintiff was committing an indictable offence at the time the bouncer intervened – whether bouncer assisted police at time of arrest – whether force used by bouncer reasonably necessary – whether force used by defendant’s employee likely to cause grievous bodily harm.

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – VICARIOUS LIABILITY – whether employer vicariously liable for bouncer’s acts - whether bouncer’s intervention was so connected with his authorised acts that it may rightly be regarded as a way of doing those acts – whether intervention in the ostensible pursuit of defendant’s business.

TORTS – BATTERY – whether bouncer committed a battery upon the plaintiff.

TORTS – BATTERY – STATUTORY DEFENCES – whether Civil Liability Act s 45(1) applies to battery.

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – where plaintiff committed a breach of the peace and was resisting arrest - whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused or contributed to by his own conduct.

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 45, s 47, s 52, s 72A.

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 6, s 254, s 260, s 340(b).

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) s 615.

Corliss v Gibbings-Johns [2010] QCA 233, applied.

New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 195 ALR 412, applied.

Ferguson v Calnan [2002] QSC 342, considered.

COUNSEL:

Morgan for the plaintiff

Atkinson for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff

Barry Nilsson for the defendant

Issues

The plaintiff was a 24 years old backpacker, drunk and angry about being evicted from his hostel late at night. Police directed the plaintiff to stay 100 metres away from the hostel and its adjoining bar. He walked off but returned behaving aggressively towards the bouncer who guarded the entrances to the hostel and bar. Two constables also returned. One constable told the plaintiff that he was under arrest. Easier said than done. The constables took hold of the plaintiff. The bouncer watched. The constables took a little time to move the restive plaintiff to the bonnet of their car but eventually bent him over it face down. One constable took his hands off the plaintiff to reach for handcuffs. The other constable had not let go. The bouncer…

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.

Continue reading O'Connell v 1st Class Security P/L

Details

AGLC: O'Connell v 1st Class Security P/L [2012] QDC 100
Case: [2012] QDC 100
Decision Date: 18 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of O'Connell v 1st Class Security P/L involved the plaintiff, O'Connell, bringing a claim against the defendant, 1st Class Security P/L, for damages resulting from injuries sustained during an arrest facilitated by the defendant's employee, a bouncer. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's employee breached their duty to exercise reasonable care and engaged in battery during the arrest. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries he claimed were caused by the defendant's employee's negligence and battery during the arrest process.

The central legal issues in the case involved whether the defendant's employee breached their duty to exercise reasonable care while assisting the police, whether the force used by the employee was reasonably necessary, and whether the statutory defences under the Civil Liability Act applied. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of the employee, and if the plaintiff's own actions contributed to his injuries.

The court found that the defendant's employee did breach their duty to exercise reasonable care, as the force used was not reasonably necessary and likely to cause grievous bodily harm. The statutory defences under the Civil Liability Act did not apply, as the bouncer was not assisting the police at the time of the arrest. Furthermore, the defendant was held vicariously liable for the employee's actions, as the intervention was closely connected with the authorised acts of the employee. The court also found that the bouncer committed a battery upon the plaintiff. Lastly, the court held that the plaintiff's contributory negligence did not absolve the defendant of liability, as the plaintiff's own actions did not contribute to his injuries.

The court ordered judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $44,318.54, with costs reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $ 44,318.54. COSTS RESERVED

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	O’Connell v 1^st Class Security P/L [2012] QDC 100
PARTIES:	JOSEPH DANIEL O’CONNELL (Plaintiff) V 1^ST CLASS SECURITY PTY LTD (ACN 122 240 251) (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD 3003/10
DIVISION:	Civil Trial
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7, 8, 9 December 2011 and written submissions to 15 May 2012
JUDGE:	Andrews SC, DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $ 44,318.54. COSTS RESERVED
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – where bouncer tried to assist police as they were performing an arrest - whether bouncer breached duty to exercise reasonable care in the performance of duties as a security officer. TORTS – NEGLIGENCE - BATTERY – STATUTORY DEFENCES FOR INJURING OTHERS WHILE ASSISTING POLICE – whether plaintiff was committing an indictable offence at the time the bouncer intervened – whether bouncer assisted police at time of arrest – whether force used by bouncer reasonably necessary – whether force used by defendant’s employee likely to cause grievous bodily harm. TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – VICARIOUS LIABILITY – whether employer vicariously liable for bouncer’s acts - whether bouncer’s intervention was so connected with his authorised acts that it may rightly be regarded as a way of doing those acts – whether intervention in the ostensible pursuit of defendant’s business. TORTS – BATTERY – whether bouncer committed a battery upon the plaintiff. TORTS – BATTERY – STATUTORY DEFENCES – whether Civil Liability Act s 45(1) applies to battery. TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – where plaintiff committed a breach of the peace and was resisting arrest - whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused or contributed to by his own conduct. Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 45, s 47, s 52, s 72A. Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 6, s 254, s 260, s 340(b). Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) s 615. Corliss v Gibbings-Johns [2010] QCA 233, applied. New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 195 ALR 412, applied. Ferguson v Calnan [2002] QSC 342, considered.
COUNSEL:	Morgan for the plaintiff Atkinson for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff Barry Nilsson for the defendant