Dahler v Australian Capital Territory and Anor (No.3)

Dahler (the applicant) brought proceedings against the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth of Australia (the respondents) in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The applicant sought damages for personal injury, alleging that the respondents owed him a duty of care in relation to the management of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) College and the conduct of training exercises conducted there. Specifically, the applicant claimed that negligent training practices and inadequate supervision during a simulated arrest exercise led to his injury.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the respondents owed the applicant a duty of care in the circumstances, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The Court was required to consider the scope of the duty of care owed by an employer to an employee, particularly in the context of inherently risky training activities, and to determine whether the respondents' actions or omissions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable employer in managing such activities and supervising trainees.

In his judgment, Judge Driver found that the respondents did owe a duty of care to the applicant. However, the Court concluded that this duty had not been breached. The reasoning focused on the inherent risks associated with police training and the fact that the applicant, as a trainee, was aware of and had accepted these risks. The Court determined that the training methods employed were not negligent and that the supervision provided was adequate, considering the nature of the exercise and the applicant's level of training. The Court applied principles relating to the duty of care in employment, particularly concerning inherently dangerous activities and the assumption of risk by the employee.