What happened

In 2019, the plaintiff's parent alerted the school to sexual grooming by another student, Z. The school warned the plaintiff to keep away and offered counselling, but an assault subsequently occurred on school premises. The evidence addressed the prior warnings, the school's knowledge and supervision arrangements, and the plaintiff's psychiatric consequences.

The issues

The central issues were whether the school took reasonable precautions against a specifically known risk and whether its failures caused the harm. Damages required an assessment of psychiatric consequences and future vulnerability alongside the plaintiff's pre-existing intellectual disability.

The court's decision

The court found that warnings and counselling were insufficient and that practical measures included supervising Z when he was roaming outside class. It rejected the argument that the plaintiff's following Z displaced the school's causal responsibility. Judgment was given for the plaintiff with assessed heads of damages, while costs were reserved.

Understanding the figures

The historical amounts assessed were AUD 47,000 for non-economic loss, AUD 15,000 for future earnings, AUD 1,260 for past expenses and AUD 15,000 for future counselling. Funds-management costs required further calculation, so these heads are not presented as a final judgment total. Larger figures in the parties' schedules were submissions, not awards.

What this case shows

The decision connects specific information already held by the school with practical protective measures. A pre-existing disability did not exclude additional accident-related harm, but even a buffer for future earning capacity needed a rational evidentiary basis.

Why another case may differ

The case turns on the school's actual knowledge and precautions rather than a guarantee against every incident between students. The assessed heads must be distinguished from a final payment total: this judgment does not supply the completed funds-management calculation or final costs outcome.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →