STARKS v. RSM SECURITY PTY. LTD. & ORS. [2004] NSWCA 351

STARKS v. RSM SECURITY PTY. LTD. & ORS. [2004] NSWCA 351

The act of the security guard in head-butting the appellant was so directly connected with his authorised acts that the employer was vicariously liable for the resulting damage; there was insufficient evidence of representational relationship or control to impose vicarious liability on the hotel and licensee for actions of the security company as an independent contractor.

Parties
Appellant: Byron Starks; First Respondent: RSM Security Pty. Ltd.; Second Respondent: Hotel Bondi Pty. Ltd.; Third Respondent: Cyril Gardner Maloney; Security Guard/second Defendant: Eugene Wilson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Tort Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Statutory Construction, Unauthorised and Illegal Act, Independent Contractor Liability
Torts Vicarious Liability Statutory Construction Unauthorised and Illegal Act Independent Contractor Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Byron Starks

Appellant

RSM Security Pty. Ltd.

First Respondent

Hotel Bondi Pty. Ltd.

Second Respondent

Cyril Gardner Maloney

Third Respondent

Eugene Wilson

Security Guard/second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Circumstances in which an employer is vicariously liable for unauthorised and illegal acts of its employee
  2. 2 Liability of principal for acts of independent contractor
  3. 3 Statutory obligations and non-delegability under Liquor Act

Ratio Decidendi

The act of the security guard in head-butting the appellant was so directly connected with his authorised acts that the employer was vicariously liable for the resulting damage; there was insufficient evidence of representational relationship or control to impose vicarious liability on the hotel and licensee for actions of the security company as an independent contractor.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Set aside verdict for the second defendant (first respondent).
  • Verdict for the plaintiff as against the second defendant, judgment accordingly.