Ryan v Ann Street Holdings Pty Ltd - [2006] QCA 217

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ryan v Ann St Holdings P/L [2006] QCA 217

PARTIES:

GAVIN PATRICK RYAN
(plaintiff/respondent/respondent)
v
ANN ST HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(ACN 097 062 452)
(defendant/applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10452 of 2005
DC No 4689 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil) & General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Williams and Jerrard JJA concurring as to the orders made, Fryberg J dissenting in part

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal granted1.

Appeal dismissed with costs2.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where a security guard at The Beat Night Club heavily punched the respondent in the head for no apparent or justifiable reason – where the respondent initiated proceedings against the appellant to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of the event – where the trial judge ruled that the appellant was vicariously liable for the conduct of the security guard – whether the actions of the security guard were such that the appellant should be held vicariously liable

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118

ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Bawden [2002] QCA 286; Appeal No 3970 of 2002, 6 August 2002, applied
Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370, cited
Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam and Ors [2003] 2 AC 366; [2003] 1 All ER 97, considered
Ferguson v Calnan and Ranieri [2002] QSC 342; SC No 6549 of 1999, 24 October 2002, cited
Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158, cited
New South Wales v Lepore and Anor [2003] HCA 4; (2003) 212 CLR 511, applied
Starks v RSM Security Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWCA 351; (2004) Aust Torts Reports 81-763, considered

COUNSEL:

P A Kronberg for the applicant/appellant
G M Egan, with C J Crawford, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Trevor Watt and Associates for the applicant/appellant
Jonathon C Whiting and Associates for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The respondent, Gavin Patrick Ryan, brought an action in the District Court against the applicant, Ann Street Holdings Pty Ltd, claiming damages for negligence. The action arose out of an incident which occurred at The Beat Night Club in Fortitude Valley shortly after 5.15 am on 25 January 2002. It was not in dispute that at that time a security guard employed by the applicant, one Vaivasa Aperu, for no apparent, or justifiable reason, punched the respondent heavily on the right side of his face, causing him to lose consciousness for a time. The respondent brought the proceeding to recover damages for the personal injuries he so sustained; ultimately the respondent obtained judgment against the applicant in the sum of $37,502.

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 Street 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: [2006] QCA 217
Decision Date: 16 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute arose from an incident where the respondent was severely punched by a security guard at The Beat Night Club. The respondent subsequently commenced proceedings against the appellant, the employer of the security guard, seeking damages for personal injuries. The trial judge found the appellant vicariously liable for the conduct of the security guard. The appellant challenged the trial judge’s decision, arguing that the actions of the security guard were not sufficiently connected to the employment for the appellant to be held vicariously liable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the actions of the security guard were such that the appellant could be held vicariously liable. The court examined whether there was a special relationship between the parties, and if the security guard was acting within the scope of his employment when he assaulted the respondent. The court needed to determine if the security guard's actions were so closely connected to his employment that it could be said the appellant was vicariously liable.

The court found that the security guard was acting in the course of his employment when he assaulted the respondent. The court held that there was a special relationship between the security guard and the respondent, as the security guard was employed to protect the patrons of the nightclub. The court further determined that the actions of the security guard were closely connected to his employment, and that the appellant was therefore vicariously liable. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal granted1.

Appeal dismissed with costs2.

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 P/L [2006] QCA 217
PARTIES:	GAVIN PATRICK RYAN (plaintiff/respondent/respondent) v ANN ST HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 097 062 452) (defendant/applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10452 of 2005 DC No 4689 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil) & General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	16 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 March 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Williams and Jerrard JJA concurring as to the orders made, Fryberg J dissenting in part
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal granted1. Appeal dismissed with costs2.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where a security guard at The Beat Night Club heavily punched the respondent in the head for no apparent or justifiable reason – where the respondent initiated proceedings against the appellant to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of the event – where the trial judge ruled that the appellant was vicariously liable for the conduct of the security guard – whether the actions of the security guard were such that the appellant should be held vicariously liable District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118 ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Bawden [2002] QCA 286; Appeal No 3970 of 2002, 6 August 2002, applied Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370, cited Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam and Ors [2003] 2 AC 366; [2003] 1 All ER 97, considered Ferguson v Calnan and Ranieri [2002] QSC 342; SC No 6549 of 1999, 24 October 2002, cited Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158, cited New South Wales v Lepore and Anor [2003] HCA 4; (2003) 212 CLR 511, applied Starks v RSM Security Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWCA 351; (2004) Aust Torts Reports 81-763, considered
COUNSEL:	P A Kronberg for the applicant/appellant G M Egan, with C J Crawford, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Trevor Watt and Associates for the applicant/appellant Jonathon C Whiting and Associates for the respondent