The High Court dismissed a student’s claim against a nightclub operator over injuries he said he suffered when security staff removed him from its premises in December 2005. The judge found that the removal was justified and that staff had not used unreasonable force. The claim failed on liability grounds.
The plaintiff, Alan Danagher, said he was caught up in a fight at the Templemore Arms Hotel nightclub and was dragged out with an arm around his neck. He alleged that he was asphyxiated and suffered neck and back injuries, as well as lasting psychological effects. The defendant, Glantine Inns Limited, said he had been involved in the fight and resisted staff as they tried to remove him.
Justice Irvine found that Danagher had been involved in the fight to a degree that gave security staff good reason to consider him a risk to other patrons. She did not find it necessary to decide whether he deliberately stood on another patron’s head. The judge found that he resisted leaving and that a struggle involving his family and friends obstructed the removal.
The court found that a security worker led Danagher backwards by holding him beneath the arms, and rejected his account that he was dragged by the neck or asphyxiated. Reviewing video footage, the judge concluded that the group fell in the foyer during the struggle and that Danagher was probably injured when his head struck the ground. She found that security staff behaved in an orderly and restrained manner while he was on the floor and that his family attended to him.
The judge said the operator had discharged its duty of care and had not used unnecessary or unreasonable force. She attributed the fall to Danagher’s resistance and the group’s efforts to pull him away from security staff. His claim for damages therefore failed.
The judgment also criticised Danagher’s evidence about the extent of his injuries. The judge found that he deliberately misled the court when he denied taking part in a charity parachute jump in July 2006, six months after the incident. She also found that he had exaggerated the number of physiotherapy and GP visits and his continuing physical and psychological symptoms.
The defendant had asked the court to dismiss the proceedings under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, alleging deliberate misleading on a material issue. The judge said she did not need to apply the provision because the claim had already failed on liability, but added that the parachute-jump evidence would otherwise have required dismissal under the section.