Kiperman v Highflame Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 165

Kiperman v Highflame Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 165

The plaintiff was assaulted by a bouncer working at the De Ville nightclub. The first and second defendants, as operator and licensee, were vicariously liable for the assault because the bouncer was in a relationship giving rise to vicarious liability and the assault was committed in the course and scope of that work. Mr Maguire negligently failed to intervene in an escalating dispute and after the push, and that breach caused the plaintiff's injuries; the third defendant was vicariously liable as his employer, and the first and second defendants were also vicariously liable for that negligence. The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. Common law damages for assault were assessed...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Assault, Alternatively Negligence / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants for $29,970, and against the third defendant for $2,970; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['assault by Nightclub Bouncer' 'vicarious Liability' 'negligence' 'duty of Care to Potential Patrons' 'contributory Negligence' 'civil Liability Act 2002 Damages' 'common Law Damages' 'exemplary and Aggravated Damages']
['torts' 'civil Liability'] ['assault by Nightclub Bouncer' 'vicarious Liability' 'negligence' 'duty of Care to Potential Patrons' 'contributory Negligence' 'civil Liability Act 2002 Damages' 'common Law Damages' 'exemplary and Aggravated 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

Civil Claim for Assault, Alternatively Negligence / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a nightclub bouncer pushed and punched Mr Kiperman outside the De Ville nightclub.' 'Whether any defendants were vicariously liable for the assault.' 'Whether Mr Kiperman was injured as a result of negligence by any defendant.' 'Whether Mr Kiperman was contributorily negligent or affected by s 50 of the Civil Liability Act 2002.' 'How damages should be assessed for assault and negligence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was assaulted by a bouncer working at the De Ville nightclub. The first and second defendants, as operator and licensee, were vicariously liable for the assault because the bouncer was in a relationship giving rise to vicarious liability and the assault was committed in the course and scope of that work. Mr Maguire negligently failed to intervene in an escalating dispute and after the push, and that breach caused the plaintiff's injuries; the third defendant was vicariously liable as his employer, and the first and second defendants were also vicariously liable for that negligence. The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. Common law damages for assault were assessed...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants for $29,970, and against the third defendant for $2,970; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants for $29,970.00, and against the third defendant for $2,970.00.' 'Entry of judgment directed accordingly.' "Defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs, on the ordinary basis." 'Determination of the cross-claims reserved.' 'The exhibits are to remain in...