Matters in the Media

Found Unconscious in a Laneway After Security Beat Him

Sprod v Public Relations Oriented Security

A man removed from a Western Sydney pizza shop was walked 80 metres up the road by security guards and beaten so badly he sustained brain damage. The Court of Appeal found his employer vicariously liable.

When security guards assault you, the key question is whether their employer can be held responsible. This case draws an important line.

Get Free Advice → 📞 0410 901 831

Courts heard this case before the right outcome was reached

80m

Distance the guards walked the plaintiff before attacking him

Unanimous

Court of Appeal decision finding vicarious liability

The Case

Sprod v Public Relations Oriented Security

The plaintiff was a former boxer who was heavily intoxicated and verbally abusive at Dave's Midnight Pizza in St Mary's, Western Sydney, at 1am. The pizza shop had an arrangement with St Mary's Band Club to call on their security guards when needed.

Two guards were called to remove the plaintiff. He resisted voluntarily leaving, so they escorted him outside. Rather than stopping there, they walked him 80 metres up the road into a laneway and beat him so badly that he sustained brain damage. He was later found lying unconscious in a pool of blood.

The central legal question was whether the security company was vicariously liable for what its guards did, or whether the assault was a personal act outside the scope of their employment entirely.

Read the full judgment on NSW Caselaw

Don't feel like reading? Watch our breakdown on TikTok

What the Courts Decided

The Supreme Court initially sided with the security company. It found that the guards' role was limited to restraining the plaintiff with reasonable force, waiting for police, or encouraging him to leave — and that what happened in the laneway went so far beyond that as to be a personal act, outside the scope of their employment.

The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision. The key piece of evidence was what the guards said when they returned to the pizza shop after the assault: they told customers not to worry about further trouble because the plaintiff "just had his head kicked in."

That statement, combined with the fact that the guards hadn't shown unusual anger inside the shop, satisfied the Court of Appeal that the assault was still directed at preventing further disturbance by the plaintiff — an improper mode of carrying out their authorised duties, not a personal frolic. The employer was vicariously liable.

Two courts, two different conclusions

This case turned on a single question: was the assault a rogue personal act, or an improper way of doing an authorised job? The two courts landed on opposite sides.

Supreme Court — First instance

Personal frolic outside scope of employment

The guards' role began and ended with maintaining order inside the pizza shop. Walking the plaintiff 80 metres away and violently attacking him was so disconnected from their duties that it could only be a personal act — settling a score rather than doing their job.

✕ Found for the defendant

Court of Appeal — Unanimous

Improper mode of carrying out authorised duties

The guards' own words on returning to the shop — that the plaintiff "just had his head kicked in" — showed they were still acting to prevent further disturbance. The violence was extreme and unlawful, but its purpose was connected to their employment. The employer was vicariously liable.

✓ Found for the plaintiff

The legal principles that decided this case

Vicarious liability for employee assaults is nuanced. These are the three categories courts use to determine whether an employer is responsible.

TYPE 01

Specifically authorised acts

The employer explicitly authorised the act. Straightforward — if the employer told the guards to do it, they're liable.

TYPE 02

Acts incidental to or implied by the employment

The act wasn't specifically authorised but naturally flows from what the employee was hired to do. Using reasonable force to restrain a patron falls here.

TYPE 03

Improper modes of authorised acts

The act wasn't authorised, but it's so connected to something that was authorised that it can be treated as a wrong way of doing an authorised thing. This is where Sprod landed — and where most disputed security assault cases are decided.

Alex's Take

The line this case draws is genuinely interesting. If security guards beat you up in anger — a personal act of retaliation — you generally won't be able to go after their employer. But if they do it dispassionately, in a way that's still connected to the purpose of their job, the employer can be held responsible even for extreme violence.

What tipped it here was the guards' own words when they came back. Telling the crowd there'd be no further trouble because the plaintiff "just had his head kicked in" was evidence they were still acting in their role as peacekeepers, just in a completely unlawful way. That's the difference between a personal frolic and an improper mode.

Alex Bassingthwaighte

Founder & Principal, Claimwise

Ready when you are

Tell us what happened.

One conversation. No pressure. Tell us a bit about your situation and we'll be in touch.

Found Unconscious in a Laneway After Security Beat Him

Sprod v Public Relations Oriented Security

What the Courts Decided

Two courts, two different conclusions

Personal frolic outside scope of employment

Improper mode of carrying out authorised duties

The legal principles that decided this case

Specifically authorised acts

Acts incidental to or implied by the employment

Improper modes of authorised acts

Tell us what happened.

Make an Enquiry