2025/00099362
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 27/5/2025 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 4.9 MB) |
| 26/9/2025 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 1.1 MB) |
| 30/9/2025 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 413.5 KB) |
| 26/9/2025 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 823.2 KB) |
| 30/9/2025 | Appellant | Certification for Publication (PDF, 451.7 KB) |
| 30/9/2025 | Respondent | Certification for Publication (PDF, 71.4 KB) |
TORTS (negligence) – the appellant sought damages for personal injury suffered as a result of alleged “serious physical abuse” inflicted on him by two members of staff, Sister Green and Mr Dixon, while he was a student at Saint Ignatius Parish School, Bourke, between 1992 and 1994 – the appellant alleged negligence against each of the respondents framed in similar terms, said to consist of a direct breach of duty owed to him to obviate risk of harm, breach of a non-delegable duty to ensure reasonable care taken of pupils, and vicarious liability for the acts of each of Sister Green and Mr Dixon – as a threshold matter, the primary judge found that the abuse as alleged was not “serious physical abuse” within the terms of s 6A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) (Limitation Act), and as such the appellant’s cause of action was statute-barred – in relation to Sister Green, the primary judge found that although she did in fact physically punish, inter alia, the appellant in varying ways, such punishment did not constitute serious physical abuse and any such conduct was more properly characterised as lawful chastisement – in relation to Mr Dixon, the primary judge found that the appellant had failed to prove misconduct by him that in any way amounted to serious physical abuse, but did accept that Mr Dixon may have deployed “rough handling” time to time to apprehend truanting students – as to vicarious liability, the primary judge found that Sister Green was not employed under a contract of service by any of the respondents, but that Mr Dixon was a direct employee, but nonetheless the claim in relation to him was extinguished – as to the non-delegable duty, the primary judge found that such a duty was only owed by the first respondent, but that such duty was not breached in the absence of serious physical abuse – in the alternative, the primary judge assessed damages in the order of $180,500 – whether primary judge erred with respect to findings of abuse, including as to proper characterisation and extent thereof, in relation to Sister Green and Mr Dixon – whether primary judge erred as to construction of “serious physical abuse” in Limitation Act – whether primary judge erred in rejection of evidence
Last updated: