Citation: Ibbett v Debilu Ltd t/as Ravesis on Bondi Beach [2026] NSWDC 129
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 May 2026
Judge: Neilson DCJ
Background
The plaintiff was a patron at a Bondi Beach hotel on the evening of 30 July 2022. A security guard employed by a third-party security company (Dark Haus Security) was being assaulted by another guest. The plaintiff intervened to assist the guard and, in doing so, sustained a fracture to her right ankle.
The hotel (the first defendant) did not employ its own security staff. Instead, it had an arrangement with Urban Protection Group (the second defendant), which in turn supplied security guards who were actually employed by Dark Haus. Those guards wore Urban's uniform and operated under a joint standard operating procedures document bearing both the hotel's logo and Urban's branding. Hotel managers and security guards were connected by radio, with a protocol requiring prompt responses to calls for assistance.
The plaintiff brought proceedings against the hotel and Urban. She also obtained default judgment against Dark Haus, but that company subsequently entered liquidation and proceedings against it could not continue. The hotel cross-claimed against Urban for contribution and indemnity.
Legal Issues
- Whether the hotel was liable in negligence as occupier for the plaintiff's injuries, having regard to its security arrangements and the response time of security personnel
- Whether Urban was vicariously liable for the negligent acts of Dark Haus employees
- Whether the plaintiff's case against the hotel was properly pleaded
- How damages should be assessed, in the event liability was established
Decision
Claim against the hotel: The court found that the plaintiff could not succeed against the hotel because the case was not properly pleaded against it. Even if the response time analysis was examined on its merits, the court calculated that the time between the security guard's call for assistance and the assault was approximately one minute and 27 seconds, with the slowest response time calculated at 17.3 seconds. The court reasoned that had adequate security responses been provided, the assaulted guard would likely have been accompanied by other guards, making it unlikely the plaintiff would have needed to intervene at all.
Claim against Urban: The plaintiff's case against Urban depended on establishing that Urban was vicariously liable for the conduct of the Dark Haus employees. The court rejected this. The security guards at the hotel were employees of Dark Haus, not Urban. The fact that they wore Urban's uniform did not alter the employment relationship. Urban was not vicariously liable for the negligence of employees belonging to a separate company.
Cross-claim by the hotel against Urban: Because the plaintiff failed against both defendants, the cross-claim by the hotel seeking contribution or indemnity from Urban also failed. The cross-defendant (Urban) obtained judgment in its favour on the cross-claim.
Damages (assessed in the alternative): Although both defendants succeeded on liability, the court assessed damages in full. The plaintiff was 31 years old at the time of injury, working as a graphic designer and later as a flight attendant. Non-economic loss was assessed at $185,000. The court declined to award anything for future domestic care and assistance, accepting the first defendant's submissions that the statutory threshold under s 15 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 had not been met and that the plaintiff's evidence did not establish a need for paid commercial assistance. Total damages were assessed at $211,000.
Orders Made
- Judgment for the first defendant (the hotel) against the plaintiff; plaintiff to pay the hotel's costs
- Judgment for the second defendant (Urban) against the plaintiff; plaintiff to pay Urban's costs
- Judgment for the cross-defendant (Urban) against the cross-claimant (the hotel); cross-claimant to pay the cross-defendant's costs
- Liberty to each party to apply on five days' notice for different cost orders
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff's failure to properly plead a negligence case against an occupier will be fatal to that claim, regardless of the underlying merits of the factual allegations about security response times.
- Where security guards are employed by one company but supplied to a venue through a separate contracting entity, vicarious liability does not attach to the contracting entity simply because guards wear its uniform; the employment relationship determines liability.
- The District Court confirmed that the presence of a joint operational document (here, a standard operating procedures document bearing both parties' branding) does not, of itself, establish that an employment or agency relationship exists between the venue and the security contractor.
- Under s 15 of the Civil Liability Act 2002, a plaintiff seeking damages for future domestic assistance must establish both a need for paid commercial assistance and that gratuitous assistance to meet that need is, or will be, unavailable; an unsubstantiated claim based on anticipated osteoarthritis and pessimistic assumptions about future personal circumstances was insufficient.
- In dismissing all claims and the cross-claim, the court assessed damages at $211,000 on a precautionary basis, with non-economic loss comprising the dominant component at $185,000 for a fractured ankle sustained by a 31-year-old.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 15
- Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), s 5
- Liquor Act 2007 (NSW), s 77(2)
- Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW), s 38A
Cases:
- Baker v Bunnings Group Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 10
- Bevillesta Pty Ltd v Liberty International Insurance Co [2009] NSWCA 16
- Day v Ocean Beach Hotel (2013) 85 NSWLR 335; [2013] NSWCA 250
- Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
- Mt Owen Pty Ltd v Parker [2023] NSWCA 77
- Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
- State of NSW v Thomlinson [2018] NSWCA 151