Oyston v St Patrick's College

[2013] NSWCA 135

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Schools
5. › Duty of school to protect student from bullying by other students
6. › Whether school breached duty of care by failing to implement anti-bullying policies
7. › Whether reasonable steps taken to prevent foreseeable risk of psychological harm
8. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Standard of care
5. › School's own policies as measure of reasonable response
6. › Whether failure to follow school's published anti-bullying procedures constituted breach
7. › Whether discretion in policy implementation exercised negligently
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact
4. › Whether primary judge's findings glaringly improbable or contrary to objective evidence
5. › Credit findings based on contemporaneous documents and cross-examination concessions

Quick Take

A school that publishes anti-bullying policies but fails to implement them — by not investigating complaints, not disciplining known perpetrators, and not following through on threatened sanctions — breaches its duty of care to a student known to be vulnerable and subject to ongoing bullying. The school's own policies are relevant to measuring the reasonableness of its response, though departure from policy does not of itself establish breach. Mere counselling of the victim is insufficient where bullying continues; the school must take active steps directed at the perpetrators.