Sprod V. Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited

Introduction

In Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited , the court was concerning about whether the Security company was vicariously liable for the violent conduct of its employees. The case analysis is to examine the approach to the decision of the court and indicate further developments as well as commercial implications.

Relevant Facts

The appellant, Mr Sproud was assaulted by two security guards who were employees of the respondent, Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited. The appellant was behaving aggressively and rudely in a pizza shop after he got seriously drunk. The two security guards arrived and removed the appellant from the shop. They then took the appellant towards the laneway and finally assaulted him while other two guards employed by the same
Whether the security guards assaulted the appellant because of personal animosity or they were acting on behalf of their employer.

Ratio Decidendi

According to the words used by Latham CJ in Deatons, it was an act ‘performed on behalf of the employer’ and ‘in the supposed furtherance of the interests of the employer’ . It was not an unprovoked act. However, it was done in the course of the employees duties. The employer would be vicarious liable for it although it was an excessive performance of the duty to protect the master’s property .

Analysis of the decision

In reaching the judgement, NSW Court of Appeal emphasised three important matters. Firstly, before the appellant was taken to the laneway where violent performance occurred, the two guards did not appear to have demonstrated any unusual anger . Secondly, after the assault, evidence showed that the guards returned to the pizza shop and ensured there would not be any trouble caused by the appellant because his head was kicked in. Thirdly, the behaviour of the other two guards who kept watching at the assault indicated that it was a planned and deliberate course of conduct and not a spontaneous act