Rouvinetis v Knoll - [2011] NSWSC 1352

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rouvinetis v Knoll & Ors [2011] NSWSC 1352
Hearing dates: 19-21/09/2011
Decision date: 10 November 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:

Verdict for the first and third to 23rd defendants.
Verdict for the second defendant.
The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs on an indemnity basis as and from 16 May 2011.
The plaintiff is to pay the balance of the defendants' costs on the ordinary basis as assessed or agreed.

Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - assault - battery - wrongful imprisonment - vicarious liability for tortious actions of security personnel
Legislation Cited: Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901
Security Industry Act 1997
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Rouvinetis v Knoll & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1212
Zorom Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq) v Zabow [2007] NSWCA 106; 71 NSWLR 354
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Evangelos Rouvinetis (Plaintiff)
David Knoll (Defendant 1)
Paliguard Pty Ltd (Defendant 2)
Stephen Rothman (Defendant 3)
Yair Miller (Defendant 4)
Robin Margo (Defendant 5)
Sam Zweie (Defendant 6)
Uri Windt (Defendant 7)
Graham de Vahl Davis (Defendant 8)
Robert Goot (Defendant 9)
Gerry Levy (Defendant 10)
Michael Marx (Defendant 11)
Peter Wertheim (Defendant 12)
George Foster (Defendant 13)
Alan Gold (Defendant 14)
Jeremy Jones (Defendant 15)
Roma Shell (Defendant 16)
Irving Wallach (Defendant 17)
Susi Brieger (Defendant 18)
Josie Lacey (Defendant 19)
Llona Lee (Defendant 20)
Ian Lacey (Defendant 21)
Robin Schuck (Defendant 22)
Jillian Segal (Defendant 23)
Representation: Counsel
In person (Plaintiff)
AD Hewitt SC (Defendants1, 3-23)
DA Lloyd (Defendant 2)
Solicitors
In person (Plaintiff)
Holman Webb Lawyers (Defendants1, 3-23)
Lee & Lyons Lawyers (Defendant 2)

File Number(s): 2008/288048

Judgment

HER HONOUR: On 14 November 2007 the Principal of Sydney Girls High School entered into an agreement, on behalf of the State of New South Wales, with Ydele Nathan, on behalf of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, to host an event in the school hall styled as an Educators' Passover Dinner scheduled for 9 April 2008. The school is located on the corner of Cleveland Street and Anzac Parade in Moore Park.

The agreement identified the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies (the NSWJBD) as a "community user". It specified that the hall and certain of the school equipment were to be used for the express purposes of the Board hosting the dinner. Guests were to attend by invitation. A fee was charged to cover the use of the premises and the equipment. The NSWJBD was obliged to hold public liability insurance. Other conditions of use were also specified including to:

(d) ensure that all users who enter and exit the school grounds under this Agreement do so as directed by the principal;

...

(h) ensure that all persons allowed on the premises or permitted by the Community User to use equipment shall properly conduct themselves and ensure that any person forbidden by the principal to use the premises or equipment does not do so.

A special condition…

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 Rouvinetis v Knoll

Details

AGLC: Rouvinetis v Knoll [2011] NSWSC 1352
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1352
Decision Date: 10 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rouvinetis v Knoll, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained as a result of alleged negligence by the defendant. The dispute arose from an incident where the plaintiff was assaulted and wrongfully imprisoned by security personnel employed by the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's security personnel were negligent in their handling of the situation, leading to the plaintiff's injuries.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant was vicariously liable for the tortious actions of its security personnel. This involved examining the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the security personnel, as well as the circumstances under which the tortious acts occurred. The court also had to consider whether the security personnel were acting within the scope of their employment when they committed the tortious acts.

The court found that the security personnel were acting within the scope of their employment when they assaulted and wrongfully imprisoned the plaintiff. The court held that the defendant was vicariously liable for the tortious actions of its security personnel. The court reasoned that the security personnel were acting as agents of the defendant, and the defendant was responsible for their actions. The court also found that the security personnel's actions were negligent, and the defendant was therefore liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The court awarded the plaintiff damages for her injuries.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $50,000 in damages, along with interest and costs. The court also ordered that the judgment be published in a local newspaper to serve as a deterrent to similar conduct in the future. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that security personnel are properly trained and supervised to prevent such incidents from occurring in the future.

Orders