Whitehouse Properties t/as Beach Road Hotel v McInerney & Anor [2005] NSWCA 436

Whitehouse Properties t/as Beach Road Hotel v McInerney & Anor [2005] NSWCA 436

The hotelier remained vicariously liable because, when Mr Smith was absent, it had effectively assumed responsibility for the management and supervision of the security guards in relation to evicting patrons. The damages ground was not allowed because the evidence about Irish treatment costs was raised late and a new trial on damages was not justified. The security company was also vicariously liable because the assault occurred in the course of the guards' employment, and the trial judge erred by not taking that liability into account on the contribution claim. Given the hotelier's dominant practical control but the security company's continuing employment relationship and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Tort Appeal Concerning Vicarious Liability, Damages and Contribution Between Tort Feasors / Appeal From District Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as between the hotelier and the plaintiff; appeal allowed in part as between the hotelier and the security company.
Legal Topics
['vicarious Liability' 'trespass to the Person' 'negligence' 'assault by Security Guards' 'contribution Between Tort Feasors' 'damages']
['torts' 'civil Procedure'] ['vicarious Liability' 'trespass to the Person' 'negligence' 'assault by Security Guards' 'contribution Between Tort Feasors' 'damages']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Tort Appeal Concerning Vicarious Liability, Damages and Contribution Between Tort Feasors / Appeal From District Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hotelier was vicariously liable for the conduct of security guards who were employees of the security company.' 'Whether the appellant should be allowed to rely on late evidence concerning the cost of future medical treatment in Ireland to challenge the damages award.' 'Whether the security company was also a tort-feasor liable to the plaintiff and, if so, what contribution was just and equitable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The hotelier remained vicariously liable because, when Mr Smith was absent, it had effectively assumed responsibility for the management and supervision of the security guards in relation to evicting patrons. The damages ground was not allowed because the evidence about Irish treatment costs was raised late and a new trial on damages was not justified. The security company was also vicariously liable because the assault occurred in the course of the guards' employment, and the trial judge erred by not taking that liability into account on the contribution claim. Given the hotelier's dominant practical control but the security company's continuing employment relationship and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as between the hotelier and the plaintiff; appeal allowed in part as between the hotelier and the security company.

Orders

  • ['As between the appellant/hotelier and the first respondent/plaintiff, appeal dismissed, with costs.' 'As between the appellant/hotelier and the second respondent/security company, appeal allowed in part.' 'On the cross-claim, the verdict and judgment of the District Court set aside; and in lieu thereof verdict and...