In State of New South Wales v T2 [2025] NSWCA 165, the New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld a decision finding the State liable in negligence after a 14-year-old student (T2) was seriously assaulted by fellow students, including one with a known history of violence, shortly after the school day ended.
The incident occurred in October 2017 after the final bell at Fairvale High School. T2, upon hearing he was about to be attacked, attempted to seek help by returning to the school. However, the administration office had closed at 3:15pm and no teachers were present at the crossing or within the grounds. T2 was ultimately prevented from boarding his bus and led to a nearby park, where he was assaulted, suffering significant physical and psychological harm.
The primary assailant, XY, had recently returned from a 20-day suspension for violent behaviour. Although recommendations were made for a risk assessment and enrolment in a behavioural program (RAGE), these were not implemented before XY’s return to school.
T2 brought proceedings against the State of New South Wales, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court found in his favour and awarded damages of approximately $1.75 million. The State appealed the findings on breach and causation, but not damages.
The Court of Appeal (Bell CJ, Kirk JA, Price AJA) dismissed the appeal. The Court held that:
- A school’s duty of care includes taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable risks of harm, which may extend beyond the classroom and school hours depending on the circumstances.
- The school breached its duty by failing to ensure staff supervision or assistance was available for a reasonable period after the school day ended, such as at the crossing or in the school office.
- Expert and departmental evidence indicated that such supervision was a low-burden and reasonable precaution. Had it been in place, the assault would likely have been prevented.
- The school’s failure to conduct a formal risk assessment or require completion of the RAGE program before XY’s return did not, on the evidence, amount to a breach that caused the harm.
This case underscores the importance of schools maintaining a practical duty of care for students during the vulnerable period immediately after the school day concludes – particularly when risks involving known student behaviour have been identified.
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.