Employer escapes liability after armed robbery sparks psychiatric injury claim

A 22-second armed robbery blitz on a Victoria-based district sports club allegedly caused an employee psychiatric injury, which she claims would’ve been preventable if the correct security measures were in place.

A former gaming cashier was working her shift at a district sports club in Victoria on 7 February 2020 when a masked robber armed with a knife abruptly stormed the premises and demanded she “put all the money in the bag”.

It’s alleged by the cashier that the incident caused her psychiatric injury, which she claimed continues to impact her mental health.

According to the cashier, this incident was caused by negligence omitted by her employer, who she alleged failed to provide a safe place of work. The cashier submitted three interwoven allegations, which she claimed contributed to the robbery taking place.

The cashier claimed that her employer failed to maintain a reception desk that was “fully manned 100 per cent of the time” during the operational hours of the establishment – leading to the undermining of security monitoring and response capabilities.

On top of this, the cashier alleged that the employer failed to provide adequate training, ensuring that reception staff were “trained to keep a watch and focus on security”. She also claimed that the club should have installed an electronic locking system (ELS), which allows workers to remotely lock entry to the doors.

The cashier relied on a risk management consultant specialising in security and safety to reinforce her alleged assessment that the club failed to provide a safe workplace via its inadequate security parameters.

The consultant claimed that had the suggested layers of security been taken at the premises, it was more likely than not that the armed robbery would have been deterred.

In line with ‘industry standards’

When assessing the allegations brought forward by the cashier, evidence was presented forward by the working HR manager at the club – who was also on the premises at the time of the robbery – and a different risk manager with 25 years in hospitality/club security.

In retort to the claims brought forward by the cashier and her risk management consultant, the hospitality-based risk manager argued that the employer followed industry standards.

“The [employer] put in place security measures that were in line with industry standards for clubs assessed with the possible likelihood of armed robbery,” the risk manager said.

The risk manager doubted that the ESL implementation or the suggested training improvements could have prevented the robbery, given the speed at which the robber committed the act.

“This robber’s MO was really well planned. He chose a time when there were very low patron numbers. He came in, was calm and collected. He targeted only accessible cash and he was in and out of the premises in 22 seconds,” the risk manager said.

“Even assuming an ESL was installed on the entry doors, which could be activated from the reception desk, and the receptionist was present at the time the offender entered, a sequence of events would need to occur for the receptionist to activate the strike lock.”

The risk manager claimed that a reception desk does not need to always be manned. In his experience, reception is not a security guard house. He totally rejected the proposition that it is mandatory or essential that a receptionist desk had to be manned 100 per cent of the time.

“You do not chain people to desks,” the risk manager said.

The hospitality-experienced risk manager did not agree nor was swayed by any of the findings submitted by the risk management consultant whom the cashier relied upon during her submission.

Courts findings

When reviewing the evidence, the Victorian County Court was not satisfied that there had been any breach by the employer in regards to the duty of care inadequacies that the cashier alleged – as the case hinges on the reception desk having to be manned 100 per cent of the time, or else the other security measures are irrelevant.

“The system the [employer] had in operation on the said date at the reception desk was reasonable from a security perspective. The desk was manned at least 80 per cent of the time, and four days a week, there was back-up assistance from the admin lady who took over reception when [the cashier] was away from the reception desk,” the court said.

Due to this, the court concluded that the cashier’s following allegations based on inadequate training and lack of an ESL were moot as both are solely dependent on the reception desk being manned 100 per cent of the time.

“‘Training’ as the [cashier] finally put it, ties in directly with the requirement to have the reception desk manned full time,” the court said.

“There can only be a breach by the defendant failing to have an ESL installed if it is accepted the reception desk should have been manned all the time, with the receptionist in a position to operate the lock if required.”

“I accept the measures in place at the premises were reasonable and consistent with industry practice at the time for clubs assessed with the possible likelihood of armed robbery. That practice was reasonable.”

In terms of how the robbery played out, the court explained that the cashier followed the procedure that the employer had in place – which places the safety of staff over anything else.

“The primary goal of any armed robbery procedure is to ensure staff comply with the offender’s directions to prevent escalating the situation to the point where the offender feels compelled to pursue physical violence. This is precisely what happened in this case. The [cashier] followed this procedure set out in the handbook to the letter,” the court said.

The employer has a page dedicated in their staff handbook labelled “Armed Hold-Up – No amount of money is worth a life – Do Not Panic!!!” The cashier claimed that “she had probably read it but her memory now is not having read it”.

“The [cashier] has failed to establish that there was negligence on the part of the defendant that was a cause of her injury, loss or damage. Accordingly, the proceeding is dismissed,” the court said.

This case is Richardson v Tooradin District Sports Club Inc [2025] VCC 459.