The New South Wales Court of Appeal’s decision in St Pauls College Ltd v Allan [2026] NSWCA 22 provides a significant authority in relation to civil pleading standards in negligence. Although the appeal ultimately failed due to the High Court’s intervening decision in Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2, the Court’s reasoning contains extensive and important obiter dicta on how pleadings in negligence must be drafted.
The respondent alleged that he was sexually abused in 2001 by a boarding house master while a student at a school operated by the appellant. Therefore, he sued the school for negligence. The primary judge allowed the plaintiff to file an amended statement of claim however the defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the pleading was too vague and did not clearly explain what the school did wrong.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to be heard but ultimately dismissed it. The Court agreed that the pleading was poorly drafted and would normally be inadequate. However, the result was affected by the High Court’s decision in AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2, which made it easier for plaintiff to succeed in cases like this. That meant that the claim could go ahead despite the problems.
The High Court in AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2 made it easier for the plaintiffs in institutional abuse cases. If a school has a duty to protect students, they can be liable for abuse by its staff even without proof that it failed to take reasonable care. This reduces how much details needs to be pleaded about the breach.
The most significant part of this decision lies in the detail’s explanation of pleading principles and its critique of the Amended Statement of Claim. Even though the plaintiff won, the Court still criticised the way the case was pleaded. It said pleadings must clearly set out the facts, not just make general claims. A plaintiff cannot simply say the defendant “failed to keep them safe” or “failed to have proper systems”. They must explain what the defendant should have done. The Court also made it clear a person cannot start a claim to see if you might have one. There must already be factual basis. Before filing, lawyers should have strong evidence to support the claim.
In negligence cases, the key issue is breach of duty therefore, the plaintiff must identify the specific steps the defendant should have taken to avoid the harm. Without this, the defendant cannot properly respond. The Court also stated that the risk of harm must be clearly described, and the plaintiff must explain how the suggested precautions would have prevented the injury.
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.