When The School Bell Rings, Does the Duty of Care End?

When The School Bell Rings, Does the Duty of Care End?

Written by Amelia Palazzo – Law Clerk

State of New South Wales v T2 (by his tutor T1) [2025] NSWCA 165

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently examined the nature and scope of the duty of care owed by schools and teachers to students, and considered the circumstances in which such duties may extend beyond school grounds and school hours, particularly in cases of violent student conduct.

Background

In or around 2017, T2 (“the Plaintiff”) was a 14-year-old student in Year 9, who sustained significant physical and psychological injuries after being attacked by a group of students after school in a park located near the school campus.

The final bell for the school day rung at 3:04pm, after which the Plaintiff proceeded to walk towards a bus stop immediately outside the school to travel home at approximately 3:15pm. While he was waiting for the bus, he learned that he was “about to get bashed” by another student, XY (“the Defendant”) and others. The Plaintiff attempted to seek nearby assistance, however there was no teacher stationed at the school crossing, no teacher on “bus duty”, the school office had closed at 3:15pm and there were no other teachers or employees of the school on duty.

Subsequently, the Defendant and others prevented the Plaintiff from boarding the bus, and led him to a nearby park, whereby the Plaintiff was violently kicked, punched and stomped on by various students. The assault was filmed and posted to social media by the Defendant and others.

The Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the State of New South Wales, alleging that the school had breached its duty of care, by not providing adequate supervision as students left school and not positioning a teacher on “bus duty”, to act as a deterrent or capable of intervening as the Plaintiff was taken from the vicinity of the school.

At trial, the Supreme Court of NSW found in favour of the Plaintiff, ruling that the State had breached its non-delegable duty of care owed to the Plaintiff, and awarded damages in the amount of $1.75 million.

The State appealed this decision on the basis that the school did not breach its duty of care and that factual causation was not established (in other words, the State did not cause the Plaintiff’s injuries).

Decision

The Court of Appeal (comprising Kirk JA, Bell CJ and Price AJA) dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the earlier Supreme Court decision, on the basis that the school’s duty of care extended beyond school hours and grounds.

Their Honours provided the following reasons for their decision:

1. The school was aware of the Defendant’s history of violence, previous incidents of attacks, and the Plaintiff’s vulnerability due to pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses and bullying incidents. Despite this, the school failed to take adequate steps to address and mitigate foreseeable risks of harm, including, monitoring the Defendant’s behaviour, providing adequate staff supervision at the end of the school day, or offering a safe school environment for vulnerable students.
2. The burden of taking such precautions to minimise the risk of harm to students was very limited and a reasonable person in the school’s position would have taken it.
3. The duty owed by the school was non-delegable in nature, which in this particular case, extended to school activities undertaken beyond school hours and grounds.
4. Whether or not a school’s duty to its students is breached with respect to an injury occurring beyond school hours or grounds is dependent upon the particular circumstances of the case.
   Their Honours provided that this may include matters such as, the age of the students, the nature and surroundings of the school, as well as any particular responsibility the school has assumed.
5. The following circumstances in this case contributed to the school’s breach of its duty of care:
   1. a. Failure to conduct a risk assessment of the Defendant prior to his return to school and supervision of his behaviour, given his previous history of assaulting students.
   2. Failure to have teachers on duty near the bus stop, school crossing, or within the vicinity of the school, after school hours.
   3. Failure to keep the school office open until 4:00pm.

Takeaways

This decision is a key reminder that a school owes its students a non-delegable duty of care, which may extend to school activities beyond school hours or grounds, subject to the specific circumstances of each matter.

Further, it highlights the significant legal implications schools may face in their failure to uphold their duty of care and protect students from the risk of foreseeable harm. This decision prompts schools to take reasonable precautions and adopt proactive and adequate measures to supervise students, whether that be within or beyond school grounds and hours.