State of New South Wales v T2 (by his tutor T1) [2025] NSWCA 165

By Walter Zhuang

Background

The Plaintiff was a 14-year-old boy who was seriously assaulted by another student (XY) shortly after school hours. After learning of the imminent threat at the school bus stop, he tried to re-enter the school to seek help from a teacher. He was then led to a nearby park by XY and a group of associates before being physically assaulted.

Procedural History and Arguments

The Plaintiff sued the State of New South Wales in the Supreme Court for negligence. The primary judge found the State liable for $1.75 million in damages for physical and psychological injuries. Negligence was said to arise due to the school’s failure to monitor XY, who had been recently suspended for assaulting another student. There was also an inadequate amount of supervision, as the Plaintiff was harmed in the vicinity of the school. Taken together, there was a ‘strong possibility’ the Plaintiff could have avoided being assaulted by XY had reasonable precautions been taken.

The State appealed, challenging her Honour’s conclusions as to liability on the basis that the school did not breach its duty of care and that factual causation was not established.

Findings on Appeal Judgment

The NSW Court of Appeal dismissed the State’s case.

The Court found that the duty of care owed by a school to its students can generally be expressed as a duty to take reasonable care to prevent its students being exposed to reasonably foreseeable risks of not insignificant harm: [63]-[65].

Whether or not a school’s duty to its students is breached with respect to an injury occurring outside school hours or the school boundary will be dependent on the particular facts of the case: [67]-[77].

As regards to causation, on the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff would not have been assaulted by XY and his associates if the school office had been open or if a teacher had been on duty at the crossing or at another obvious place in the school grounds: [93]-[97].

The burden of taking such a precaution was very limited, and a reasonable person in the school’s position would have taken it, taking account of the evidence of the school’s Principal and Deputy Principal, Departmental policies, and the evidence of experts called by both sides: [98]-[121].

Outcome

The primary judge thus ultimately did not err in finding that breach and causation were established: [122]. The school was therefore liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries for $1.75 million.

Practical Impact of this Case

If your child is injured at school, your child may be entitled to compensation arising from both physical injuries and psychological injuries.

A school will generally have a duty of care to all its students, which can even exist outside of school grounds or school hours. However, the extent of liability and damages resulting from a personal injury claim involves a complex analysis of the facts. As seen from this case, this is usually a question of evidence. If your child has been injured at a school please contact one of our friendly lawyers for advice as soon as possible.