Reported Decision: (2007) Aust Torts Reports 81-921 Appeal Outcome: Special leave refused with costs by the High Court - 13 June 2008
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited [2007] NSWCA 319
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 30/10/07
JUDGMENT DATE:
9 November 2007JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; Tobias JA at 88; Hislop J at 89 DECISION: (1) The Appeal is upheld. (2) The judgment of Cooper AJ is set aside. (3) The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for resolution of the outstanding issues. (4) The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of the trial and the appeal. (5) The respondent is to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) if otherwise qualified. CATCHWORDS: TORTS – negligence – vicarious liability – owner of club – security guards employed by respondent club owner assaulted the appellant in a laneway – unauthorised acts of assault – proximity to authorised acts – whether the unauthorised acts of the security guards were so closely connected with acts which, by virtue of their employment, they were authorised to carry out, or whether they were mere independent acts motivated primarily by personal animosity and vindictiveness, such that they were to be regarded as improper modes of discharging their duties as security guards – interests of employer – whether the unauthorised acts were done in the supposed furtherance of the respondent’s interests. D LEGISLATION CITED: Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) CASES CITED: Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534
Bugge v Brown (1919) 26 CLR 110
Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Lockhart [1942] AC 591
Deatons Pty Limited v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370
Dyer v Munday [1895] 1 QB 742
Flew v Deatons Pty Limited (1949) 49 SR (NSW) 219; 66 WN (NSW) 98
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Hollis v Vabu Pty Limited (2001) 207 CLR 21
Sandstone DMC Pty Limited v Trajkovski [2006] NSWCA 205
Sprod v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1074
Starks v RSM Security Pty Limited (2004) Aust Torts Reports 81-768
State of New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
Zorom Enterprises Pty Limited v Zabow [2007] NSWCA 106PARTIES: Gregory Sprod by his next friend Jennifer Sprod (Appellant)
Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited (Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40297/06 COUNSEL: D Campbell SC/A Hourigan (Appellant)
G Watson SC (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Beston Macken McManis (Appellant)
Shearman Lawyers (Respondent)LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Common Law Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20455/02 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Cooper AJ LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 01/11/05 LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2005] NSWSC 1074
CA 40297/06
SC 20455/02Friday 9 November 2007IPP JA
TOBIAS JA
HISLOP J
GREGORY SPROD by his next friend JENNIFER SPROD v PUBLIC RELATIONS ORIENTED SECURITY PTY LIMITED
Judgment
1 IPP JA:
Continue reading Sprod v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Sprod v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 319
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 319
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Mr. Sprod, appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of Cooper AJ in the Supreme Court. The dispute concerned the vicarious liability of the respondent, Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Ltd, for the unauthorised acts of assault committed by its employees, security guards, against the appellant in a laneway adjacent to a club where the guards were employed.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the security guards' unauthorised acts of assault were so closely connected with the acts they were authorised to perform as part of their employment that the respondent could be held vicariously liable. Alternatively, the court had to determine if these acts were merely independent actions motivated by personal animosity, and thus not within the scope of their employment, even if done in the supposed furtherance of the respondent's interests.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Ipp JA, Tobias JA, and Hislop J, found that the trial judge had erred in their determination of the vicarious liability issue. The court reasoned that the unauthorised acts of the security guards were sufficiently connected to their authorised duties to render the respondent vicariously liable. The appeal was upheld, the judgment of Cooper AJ was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for the resolution of outstanding issues. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of both the trial and the appeal, with a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) to be provided if otherwise qualified.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the security guards' unauthorised acts of assault were so closely connected with the acts they were authorised to perform as part of their employment that the respondent could be held vicariously liable. Alternatively, the court had to determine if these acts were merely independent actions motivated by personal animosity, and thus not within the scope of their employment, even if done in the supposed furtherance of the respondent's interests.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Ipp JA, Tobias JA, and Hislop J, found that the trial judge had erred in their determination of the vicarious liability issue. The court reasoned that the unauthorised acts of the security guards were sufficiently connected to their authorised duties to render the respondent vicariously liable. The appeal was upheld, the judgment of Cooper AJ was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for the resolution of outstanding issues. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of both the trial and the appeal, with a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) to be provided if otherwise qualified.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Appeal is upheld. (2) The judgment of Cooper AJ is set aside. (3) The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for resolution of the outstanding issues. (4) The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of the trial and the appeal. (5) The respondent is to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) if otherwise qualified. (Ipp JA, Tobias JA and Hislop J agreeing)
Amendments to decision: 12/11/2007 - Para [41] 3rd line of quotation: the word "was" deleted and "or as" inserted.
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.