In a significant decision for the rights of students and responsibilities of educational institutions, the NSW Supreme Court has ruled that a school’s duty of care may extend beyond school hours and property boundaries. The judgment comes after a case where T2, a former school student, suffered an unprovoked attack by 12 classmates shortly after the end of the school day in October 2017. Through his tutor, T2 sued the State of New South Wales, alleging negligence in failing to prevent the assault, which led to lasting psychiatric damage.
The court heard that T2 had argued that the school failed in several respects to uphold its duty of care: by not effectively supervising students after school hours, by leaving the administrative office unstaffed when assistance was needed, and by allowing a student with a history of violence to return to school without sufficient risk assessment. T2 contended that these failures directly contributed to the assault and exacerbated his existing psychiatric conditions, impairing his enjoyment of life, education, and future career prospects.
The defendant, the State of New South Wales, admitted a duty of care existed but argued it was limited to school hours and grounds. They further denied any direct link between the alleged breach of duty and the damages T2 claimed.
Key Findings of the Court
The Court found in favour of T2, ruling that:
- Extended Duty of Care: Schools have a duty of care that may extend beyond school grounds and hours, particularly in cases where there is a foreseeable risk to student safety.
- Responsibility for Vulnerable Students: Schools bear a heightened duty of care to students with physical or psychological vulnerabilities and must take steps to prevent potential harm, such as bullying or assault.
- Need for Proper Risk Assessments: The ruling emphasized the importance of risk assessments for students with histories of violence before they are permitted to rejoin the school community.
- Supervision Beyond School Boundaries: Adequate supervision should be provided as students leave school grounds to ensure safe passage home.
The court held that the lack of supervision, failure to conduct a risk assessment for the student with a known violent background, and unavailability of the administration office all contributed to the conditions that allowed the attack to occur. These omissions, it found, were causative factors that enabled the assault.
Impacts on T2’s Life and Damages Awarded
The court noted the significant worsening of T2’s psychiatric condition following the assault, including an increased level of autism spectrum disorder and diminished vocational outlook. Damages were awarded for non-economic losses, lost future earnings, and future medical and attendant care needs. Due to T2’s age and uncertainty around his future, a “buffer” approach was adopted for some of the awards.
This ruling sets a precedent on the scope of duty schools owe to their students, marking a shift in how educational institutions may need to approach student safety and risk management. It reinforces that schools must take proactive steps to ensure safety both during and after school hours, particularly where students are known to be vulnerable or face specific risks.
The decision of T2 (by his tutor T1) v State of New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 1347 can be read here.
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.