Security slip-up: Ibbett v Ravesis and the limits of liability

Hotel and security company not liable for patron’s injury during altercation due to poor pleading undermining the case.

The background

The plaintiff, Ms Blair Ashleigh Ibbett, sustained a fractured right ankle after attempting to assist a security guard, Mr Ramadan Tia, who was being assaulted by another patron (the patron) at Hotel Ravesis, Bondi Beach (Ravesis), on 30 July 2022 at approximately 9:45pm. The plaintiff was a guest at Ravesis at the time and brought proceedings for damages against Debilu Pty Ltd trading as Ravesis on Bondi Beach (the first defendant), Urban Protection Group Pty Ltd (the second defendant) and Ample Security Service Pty Ltd trading as Dark Haus Security (Dark Haus). Default judgment was obtained by the plaintiff against Dark Haus, who later entered liquidation and did not participate in the trial. The plaintiff alleged the first and second defendants were negligent because they, respectively, failed to arrange adequate security measures and failed to prevent the incident, including, inter alia, by failing to heed and/or ignoring the behaviour exhibited by the patron, by failing to ask the patron to leave Ravesis prior to 21:41 hours, and by failing to ensure there was a sufficient number of licensed security personal at Ravesis to reasonably reflect the number of persons on the premises.

The first defendant also brought a cross-claim against the second defendant for contribution and indemnity.

In issue

The case concerned the legal responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries and the adequacy of the first and second defendants’ systems for managing security and patron conduct. Key issues included:

• Whether the first and/or second defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and if so, whether there was a breach resulting in the injury sustained.
• Whether the second defendant was vicariously liable for any acts or omissions of Dark Haus' employees (including Mr Tia).
• The adequacy of security protocols, the response time to requests for backup, and whether deficiencies contributed to the circumstances of the injury.
• Whether the first and/or second defendant failed in monitoring intoxicated patrons and managing violence or disorderly conduct.
• The nature and impact of the plaintiff’s injury, including physical and psychological effects, and assessment of damages.

The decision at trial

Liability

1. First defendant: His Honour found that the plaintiff’s claim could not succeed against the first defendant due to a failure to properly plead the relevant case. In particular, the allegations of negligence pleaded against the first defendant were not substantiated by the facts proven at trial. Specifically, there was found to be no evidence of:
   1. intoxication on behalf of the patron
   2. repeated complaints by the plaintiff to Ravesis’ staff
   3. sufficiently proven breaches relating to the service of alcohol, or
   4. a failure to eject the patron.

Further, the Court determined that the scuffle in question had been contained within 15 seconds and there was no evidence that the first defendant permitted violence or failed to monitor liquor consumption to the extent alleged.

1. Second defendant: the Court held that the only way that the plaintiff could succeed against the second defendant was if it were found to be vicariously liable for the acts, neglects or defaults of the employees of Dark Haus, who did not respond promptly to Mr Tia’s calls for backup. It was ultimately determined that the second defendant was not to be vicariously liable for the negligence of Dark Haus' employees
2. The first defendant’s cross-claim was dismissed, as the Court determined that the first defendant was not liable to the plaintiff.

Causation

1. His Honour emphasised that if there had been a prompt response to Mr Tia's radio call for backup, the assault (and subsequent injury to the plaintiff) would likely have been prevented. However, the factors contributing to the delay did not result in a finding of liability against either defendant, largely due to the manner in which the case was pleaded and the available evidence.
2. The actions of the plaintiff herself (intervening to assist the guard) were deemed foreseeable, and not negligent, but played a role in the chain of events leading to her injury.

Implications for you

This decision demonstrates the critical importance of properly pleading all aspects of a negligence claim and leading evidence to pleaded particulars. Even if there is compelling factual evidence tendered about delays in security responses, liability will not be found unless the case as pleaded accords with agreed or determined facts.

Ibbett v Debilu Ltd t/as Ravesis on Bondi Beach [2026] NSWDC 129