K, N. (otherwise K.) (Ireland) Ltd v C.P. Security Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Egan
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1986
• Neutral Citation: 1985 WJSC-HC 2291
• Docket Number: [1984 No. 8356P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1986

1985 WJSC-HC 2291

THE HIGH COURT

No. 8356 p./1984

JOHNSON & JOHNSON (IRELAND) LTD. v. C.P. SECURITY LTD.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON (IRELAND) LIMITED

.v.

C.P. SECURITY LIMITED

Citations:

CHESHIRE V BAILEY 1905 1 KB 237

LLOYD V GRACE SMITH & CO 1912 AC 716

MORRIS V C W MARTIN & SONS LTD 1965 2 AER 725

Synopsis:

AGENCY

Agent

Dishonesty - Liability of principal - Theft of third party's goods - Defendant employers contracting as security firm to protect plaintiff's premises - Thieves gaining access to premises with help of defendant's employee - Employee's help given while on guard duty at plaintiff's premises - Defendants held liable for plaintiff's damages - Interest allowed on damages assessed - (1984 No. 8356P - Egan J. - 15/11/85)

|Johnson (Ir.) Ltd. v. C. P. Security|

CRIMINAL LAW

Crime

Agent offender - Larceny - Theft of third party's goods - Liability of offender's employer - Defendant employers contracting as security firm to protect plaintiff's premises - Thieves gaining access to premises with help of defendants" employee - Employee's help given while on guard duty at plaintiff's premises - Defendants held liable for plaintiff's damages - (1984 No.8356P - Egan J. - 15/11/85).

|Johnson (Ir.) Ltd. v. C.P. Security|

EMPLOYMENT

Employee

Dishonesty - Liability of employer - Theft of third party's goods - Defendant employers contracting as security firm to protect plaintiff's premises - Thieves gaining access to premises with help of defendants" employee - Employee's help given while on guard duty at plaintiff's premises - Defendants held liable for plaintiff's damages - Interest allowed on damages assessed - (1984 No. 8356P - Egan J. - 15/11/85).

|Johnson (Ir.) Ltd. v. C.P. Security|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Egan delivered the 15th day of November 1985

2 The Plaintiffs are a limited liability company which carries on business at Tallaght, Co. Dublin, as manufacturers and retailers of Pharmaceuticals.

3 The Defendants are a limited liability company which carries on the business of providing specialist security protection for third parties.

4 Discussions took place between representatives of the parties culminating in an offer by the Defendants of a security service in respect of the Plaintiffs" premises. This offer, which was orally accepted by the Plaintiffs, is contained in a letter from the defendant company to the plaintiff company dated the 9th October 1980. The letter sets out inter alia that "the security officers" function is to prevent break-in, theft, fire, malicious damage, trespass". The Plaintiffs had also been given promotional literature by the Defendants but nothing of any particular note is contained in it.

5 A few complaints were made by the Plaintifffs in the earlier half of 1983 in relation to particular guards employed by the Defendants e.g. being found asleep on duty and failure to make calls to base. I am satisfied on the evidence that these complaints were justified but they are not directly relevant to the particular issues in this case.

6 Around the beginning of July 1983 the Plaintiffs became aware that some of their products were being marketed in Dublin through unauthorised channels and they became suspicious that these goods were being stolen from their premises and that a man named John Neeson could possibly be involved. John Neeson was a man who had been employed by the Defendants as a security officer and he had often been on duty at the Plaintiffs" premises from the year 1982.

7 The Plaintiffs" suspicions in regard to Neeson were communicated to Mr. Michael Fenton, Managing Director of the defendant company on the 11th July 1983. Mr. Fenton suggested that Neeson could be taken off duty in so far as the Plaintiffs" premises were concerned but Mr. Normile, Personnel Manager of the plaintiff company, was not in favour of this as they were uncertain as regards any involvement by Neeson and also had suspicions that their own employees could possibly be involved. The Crime Prevention Office was contacted and a Detective Agency was also employed. Representatives of the Plaintiffs were also involved in surveillance but nothing was detected until the early hours of the 18th August 1983. On that occasion a man named Patrick Murphy driving a van was admitted to the Plaintiffs" premises by Neeson who opened the warehouse for him. Murphy was accompanied by two other men and they loaded the van with various products.

8 Neeson and Murphy were subsequently sentenced to imprisonment and Murphy gave evidence in this case which I fully accept. He stated that on 8 to 10 occasions prior to that similar thefts had occurred with the assistance of Neeson. He was uncertain as to dates but the general effect of his evidence would suggest that the first theft occurred about the middle of May 1983.

9 The Defendants deny liability for the acts of their servant. I am...