Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

ICBM slugged $130k for beating up a punter

By johnboy 29 October 2012 32

The Supreme Court’s Justice Sidis has found for Sharon Hopps in her action against the owners of the ICBM night club who could neither find the responsible security guard, nor turn up to court.

In this matter, the plaintiff claimed that in the early hours of 23 May 2009 she was assaulted by a security guard on licensed premises operated by the first and third defendants under the name ICBM in Northbourne Avenue, Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory.

The claim was brought against the first and third defendants as occupiers and operators of the premises and against the third defendant as the employer of the security guard. The proceedings were commenced on 20 July 2011 and duly served on the first and third defendants. The security guard was initially named as a party but the plaintiff was unable to locate him and he was not served. Proceedings against him were discontinued on 14 August 2012.

In the absence of appearance or the filing of any defence, default judgment was entered against the remaining defendants on 27 June 2012 for damages, costs and interest to be assessed. The parties were notified by the Registrar on 14 September 2012 that the matter was to be listed before the court today. The defendants were called at 11 am, the listing time, three times and there was no appearance on their part. In the absence of any communication with the court by the first or third defendants, I acceded to the plaintiff’s request to proceed with an assessment of her claim.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to
ICBM slugged $130k for beating up a punter
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
caf 7:29 pm 31 Oct 12

buzz819 said :

caf said :

So, why wasn’t this investigated for a criminal charge of assault?

How do you know it wasn’t?

Because if it had been, even if it hadn’t gone as far as a charge, I doubt the plaintiff would have had any trouble in serving the bouncer involved.

schmeah 7:13 pm 31 Oct 12

More ammo for my “there are no classy venues in Canberra” argument .. they just don’t exist, non-sensical really given all the money in this town.

liability 4:10 pm 31 Oct 12

In regards to the comments about the public liability insurer covering it, I very much doubt that will be the case. It there was an insurer involved they would have filed a defence, turned up at Court, etc.

The fact that a Default Judgement was made indicates that ICBM didn’t respond to the claim in any way. If they had an insurer I am sure they would have advised the insurer and the insurer would have taken over carriage of the matter.

While I obviously don’t know the details of the matter, there is always the possibility that ICBM will later deny that they were served with a Statement of Claim, and they could try and get the Judgement put aside (i.e. they would then be able to file a defence and fight the matter).

There is also the remote possibility that the Statement of Claim was served on a staff member who simply threw it in the bin, without telling management, that as happened in the past.

Tetranitrate 3:34 pm 31 Oct 12

Also, on chances to recover the money: aside from the rather odd situation of not turning up to court I’m definitely aware of an incident long ago at err… another club where a woman fell on the dance floor and was badly cut by glass. Compensation definitely was paid out in that case and security at club in question is to this day extremely strict about drinks on the dance floor.
However I’m not sure about the amount, it was a pretty long time ago.

Tetranitrate 3:26 pm 31 Oct 12

Pitchka said :

Kiron2222 said :

Tetranitrate said :

Personally I used to think it was a bit of a joke, but I was always more the mooseheads sort anyway.

Is that supposed to be a good thing? Mooseheads and ICBM are both the lowest common denominator of Nightlife culture. They are both, by far, the worst nightclubs in this city.

Doesnt explian why MH is packed like a tin or sardines every saturday night. Part owner is a family friend. Hasnt stepped foot in his nightclub for yonks, has others managing it for him whilst he lives quite a plush life style.

Well it’s large and kinda varied with the pub/bar atmosphere downstairs and nightclub upstairs. It’s well staffed so even when it’s packed you’re not waiting forever to get to the bar and the fact that it’s popular with the uni crowd is self perpetuating.

It’s also relatively safe as far as crowded bogan filled nightspots go, there’s security on every floor and they can all quickly convene in the same place if there’s a major incident so even a brawl involving a dozen people will get broken up pretty quickly.
Obviously it’s a trashy, full of (insert invective) and little more than a meat market but it is what it is, and it’s good at being what it is.

Pitchka 2:31 pm 31 Oct 12

Kiron2222 said :

Tetranitrate said :

Personally I used to think it was a bit of a joke, but I was always more the mooseheads sort anyway.

Is that supposed to be a good thing? Mooseheads and ICBM are both the lowest common denominator of Nightlife culture. They are both, by far, the worst nightclubs in this city.

Doesnt explian why MH is packed like a tin or sardines every saturday night. Part owner is a family friend. Hasnt stepped foot in his nightclub for yonks, has others managing it for him whilst he lives quite a plush life style.

KB1971 2:15 pm 31 Oct 12

KB1971 said :

Muttsybignuts said :

I love Pandoras and her Jolly Jugs…

You ARE old……..

I might add, every time I go to a meeting in “In Blue” the Jolly Jugs tune rolls through my head………

KB1971 2:14 pm 31 Oct 12

Muttsybignuts said :

I love Pandoras and her Jolly Jugs…

You ARE old……..

Funky1 1:57 pm 31 Oct 12

RedDogInCan said :

maxblues said :

130k for being roughed up by a bouncer… there must be some punters around town thinking they are worth a fortune.

The headline is misleading. The court has only agreed to assess her claim. In order to get the $130k claimed, she would have to demonstrate the loss and suffering caused by the incident was worth that amount and the court would have to agree.

If you read the ruling, the assessment has been done at $130k awarded to her.

Pretty sure this will be covered by liability insurance by the venue, not out of their own pocket (but their premiums are sure to rise).

RedDogInCan 1:24 pm 31 Oct 12

maxblues said :

130k for being roughed up by a bouncer… there must be some punters around town thinking they are worth a fortune.

The headline is misleading. The court has only agreed to assess her claim. In order to get the $130k claimed, she would have to demonstrate the loss and suffering caused by the incident was worth that amount and the court would have to agree.

maxblues 1:09 pm 31 Oct 12

130k for being roughed up by a bouncer… there must be some punters around town thinking they are worth a fortune. As the old blues song goes…”If trouble was money…I’d be a millionaire”.

devils_advocate 11:10 am 31 Oct 12

caf said :

So, why wasn’t this investigated for a criminal charge of assault?

Without knowing the details of the case, likely explanations could be lack of sufficient evidence to prove requisite intent/harm to criminal standard (as opposed to civil); need for DPP to form the view that prosecution is in the public interest (including having regard to allocating resources to more serious crimes that would be on the books at any given time).

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site