Director-General of Education v Suttling

The Director-General of Education (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had upheld a finding by the respondent, Mr Suttling, that the appellant had breached his duty of care to a student. The dispute concerned the appellant's responsibility for ensuring the safety of students at a school, specifically in relation to the use of a particular piece of playground equipment.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Director-General of Education owed a duty of care to students attending state schools, and if so, the scope and content of that duty. The court was required to consider the extent to which the Director-General, as the head of the education department, was responsible for the safety of school premises and equipment, and whether this responsibility extended to preventing foreseeable harm to students.

The High Court, by majority, held that the Director-General did owe a duty of care to students. The majority reasoned that the Director-General, by virtue of his position and the powers vested in him, had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that school premises and equipment were safe for use by students. This duty was not merely to provide a safe environment but to take positive steps to identify and mitigate foreseeable risks. The court emphasised that the Director-General could not delegate this ultimate responsibility for safety, even if day-to-day management was delegated to others. The principles of negligence, particularly the foreseeability of harm and the existence of a relationship of proximity, were applied to establish the existence and scope of this duty.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court affirming the finding that the Director-General had breached his duty of care.