Ryan v Ann St Holdings Pty Ltd - [2005] QDC 345

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ryan v Ann St Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 345

PARTIES:

GAVIN PATRICK RYAN
Plaintiff
v
ANN ST HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Defendant

FILE NO:

BD 4689 of 2004

PROCEEDING

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

14 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

7 November 2005

JUDGE:

Judge Brabazon QC

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff.

CATCHWORDS:

TORT – Vicarious liability of employer – Whether an employer can be vicariously liable for an unauthorised and illegal act of its employee – Where a security guard struck a patron in an unprovoked attack on the employer’s premises.

Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370
Ferguson v Calnan & Ranieri [2002] QSC 342
New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 213 CLR 511
Starks v RSM Security Pty Ltd and Ors [2004] NSWCA 351

COUNSEL:

Mr G Egan for the plaintiff

Mr P Kronberg for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Jonathan C Whiting & Associates for the plaintiff

Trevor Watt & Associates for the defendant

The Issue

This case is about the responsibility of a nightclub proprietor for the actions of its security staff. If a security guard violently attacks a patron for no good reason, can the proprietor be liable to pay damages to that patron?

The Facts

In January 2002 The Beat nightclub, in Fortitude Valley, stopped trading at 5 a.m. There was then a period of 30 minutes grace for patrons to finish their drinks. They were all expected to be off the premises by 5.30 a.m. At around 5.15 a.m., the lights would be turned up, the music turned off, and the dance floor lights turned off, as the signal that it was time to leave.

On the evening of 24 January 2002, The Beat employed five security guards. One of them was an Islander by the name of Vaivasa Aperu. He had a stocky build and was about 5ft 10in tall.

Mr Ryan and a friend, Mr Philip Tyson, decided to visit the nightclub. They first went to a hotel where they had a couple of drinks. They arrived at the nightclub at about midnight. By 5 a.m. they were affected by alcohol, but in control of themselves. They had been drinking, talking and listening to the music. They did nothing to draw any attention to themselves. They were quiet and well-behaved.

They say that the other patrons were also well-behaved, with the exception of one man, who was escorted from the premises by security staff. That man was roughly handled by two or three guards. His arms were held as he was walked out of the club.

The two men could identify who were security guards because of their black uniforms and their distinctive badges.

At about 5.20 a.m. they both left the club and stood talking on the footpath. Other people were involved in the conversation. One of the security guards approached Mr Tyson. He did not know the guard but later learned that his name was Vaivasa Aperu. Aperu asked Mr Tyson if he…

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 Ryan v Ann St Holdings 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: [2005] QDC 345
Decision Date: 14 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ryan v Ann St Holdings Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries sustained when a security guard employed by the defendant corporation struck him without provocation at a nightclub operated by the defendant. The dispute centred on whether the employer could be held vicariously liable for the employee's illegal and unauthorised actions. The matter was determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The principal legal issue before the court was whether an employer can be held vicariously liable for the tortious actions of an employee when those actions are unauthorised and illegal. The court had to examine the circumstances under which an employer might be held responsible for such actions and whether there were any mitigating factors that would absolve the employer of liability.

The court found that the employer could indeed be held vicariously liable for the actions of the employee. The court reasoned that the relationship between the employer and the employee was such that the employer had a duty to ensure the safety of patrons on its premises, and the employee's actions directly contravened this duty. The court emphasised that the illegality of the employee's conduct did not absolve the employer of liability, as the employer had failed to exercise reasonable care in the supervision and management of its employee. The court held that the employer was vicariously liable for the actions of the employee, and thus the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages.

The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages for the injuries sustained. The defendant was also ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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:	Ryan v Ann St Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 345
PARTIES:	GAVIN PATRICK RYAN Plaintiff v ANN ST HOLDINGS PTY LTD Defendant
FILE NO:	BD 4689 of 2004
PROCEEDING	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	14 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	7 November 2005
JUDGE:	Judge Brabazon QC
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff.
CATCHWORDS:	TORT – Vicarious liability of employer – Whether an employer can be vicariously liable for an unauthorised and illegal act of its employee – Where a security guard struck a patron in an unprovoked attack on the employer’s premises. Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370 Ferguson v Calnan & Ranieri [2002] QSC 342 New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 213 CLR 511 Starks v RSM Security Pty Ltd and Ors [2004] NSWCA 351
COUNSEL:	Mr G Egan for the plaintiff Mr P Kronberg for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Jonathan C Whiting & Associates for the plaintiff Trevor Watt & Associates for the defendant