Stickel v Millcrist Investment Pty Ltd and Anor [2025] NSWDC 21

Stickel v Millcrist Investment Pty Ltd and Anor [2025] NSWDC 21

The plaintiff established that batteries were committed by Security Guards One and Two, for which the second defendant, as their employer, is vicariously liable. The conduct of the security guards was not justified by self-defence or other lawful authority in the first and second episodes. In relation to the third and fourth episodes, the acts of the security guards were lawful arrests and use of reasonable force authorised by statute. The claim against the first defendant failed as no evidence of joint/dual vicarious liability or employment was made out. Damages assessed only in respect of the episodes where liability was found.

Parties
Plaintiff: Christian Joachim Stickel; First Defendant: Millcrist Investment Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Infinity Security Group Pty Ltd t/as Infinity Security Group
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment in favour of the first defendant; judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $25,000 plus pre-judgment interest to be determined; costs for first defendant; plaintiff's costs against second defendant reserved.
Legal Topics
Battery, False Imprisonment, Vicarious Liability, Limitation of Actions, Assessment of Damages, Self Defence, Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw), Arrest Without Warrant, Use of Reasonable Force
Torts Civil Procedure Battery False Imprisonment Vicarious Liability Limitation of Actions Assessment of Damages Self Defence +3 more

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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christian Joachim Stickel

Plaintiff

Millcrist Investment Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Infinity Security Group Pty Ltd t/as Infinity Security Group

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings were brought within time under s 14 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether security guards committed battery and/or false imprisonment
  3. 3 Whether acts of the security guards were justified by self-defence (s 52 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW))

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established that batteries were committed by Security Guards One and Two, for which the second defendant, as their employer, is vicariously liable. The conduct of the security guards was not justified by self-defence or other lawful authority in the first and second episodes. In relation to the third and fourth episodes, the acts of the security guards were lawful arrests and use of reasonable force authorised by statute. The claim against the first defendant failed as no evidence of joint/dual vicarious liability or employment was made out. Damages assessed only in respect of the episodes where liability was found.

Court Disposition

Judgment in favour of the first defendant; judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $25,000 plus pre-judgment interest to be determined; costs for first defendant; plaintiff's costs against second defendant reserved.

Orders

  • Judgment in favour of the first defendant.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs.