Fleming v Flinders University

Case [2025] SASC 171

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil)

FLEMING v FLINDERS UNIVERSITY

[2025] SASC 171

Judgment of the Honourable Justice Gray  

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH

STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - ENFORCEMENT OF STATUTORY RIGHTS AND REMEDIES - BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY

EDUCATION - INSTITUTIONS - UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS

The applicant, Ms Fleming, claims in negligence that the respondent, Flinders University, breached its duty of care, and that the respondent breached its statutory duty of care. The applicant contends that the respondent is vicariously liable for the actions of its staff.

Ultimately, the applicant’s claim seeks to place herself in the position she held as an undergraduate with a granted extension to meet the final requirements of her bachelor’s degree.

Six separate incidents were the subject of factual disputes, being:

1.      The events of the first mentor meeting on 23 March 2018;

2.      The events at the lecture theatre on 23 March 2018;

3.      The events of the second mentor meeting on 6 April 2018;

4.      The events at the lecture theatre on 4 May 2018;

5.The extent to which appeals were instituted and pursued concerning decisions by the respondent concerning the applicant; and,

6.The extent to which staff of the respondent were acting recklessly or in concert to adduce a consequence of the applicant being excluded from completing all of the required topics to graduate with a Bachelor of Laws and Legal Practice degree.

The applicant contended that she had not done anything wrong during either the mentor meetings or the lectures. She further contended that she had exhausted her appeal rights regarding the allocation of the fail grade.

The respondent claimed it had not breached any duty to Ms Fleming and no relevant duty was properly pleaded. The University claimed Ms Fleming had not suffered any relevant loss as a consequence of any alleged breach of duty, and Ms Fleming had not established any particular act or omission giving rise to identifiable loss or damage.

Held, dismissing the applicant’s claim:

1.The evidence of the applicant in relation to the factual issues in dispute is rejected. Factual findings are made accepting the version of events given at trial by the respondent’s witnesses: at [71], [79]-[81], [92]-[93], [115]-[117], [123]-[124] and [159];

2.No cause of action is established in the tort of negligence. No particular act or omission is established on the evidence to support such a cause of action, and no identified act or omission is linked to identifiable loss or damage: at [181];

3.The applicant has not on the facts of this case established a statutory duty arising pursuant to s 18A of the Flinders University Act 1966 (SA) or pursuant to University Statute 6.4 and a breach of that duty giving rise to any identifiable loss or damage: at [191]-[192]; and,

4. No basis for the remedies sought has been established by the applicant: at [198].

Flinders University Act 1966 (SA) s 3-5, s 18A and s 20; Civil…

Continue reading Fleming v Flinders University

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fleming v Flinders University [2025] SASC 171
Case
[2025] SASC 171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Fleming v Flinders University, the plaintiff, Ms Fleming, alleged that the university had breached its duty of care towards her by not allowing her to complete her Bachelor of Laws and Legal Practice degree, which in turn caused her significant loss and damage. The university denied any breach of duty and argued that Ms Fleming had not suffered any relevant loss. The court was required to determine whether the university breached its duty of care and whether such breach caused any loss to Ms Fleming. The court found that Ms Fleming's version of events differed significantly from that of other witnesses, and her claims were not supported by the evidence. The court concluded that Ms Fleming had not established a basis for the remedies that she sought.

The court found that the university had not breached its duty of care towards Ms Fleming. The court noted that the university had granted Ms Fleming an extension to complete her degree and that she had the opportunity to complete the required topics. The court found that Ms Fleming had not taken advantage of the extension and had not completed the required topics. The court held that the university had acted reasonably in enforcing the 10-year limit for completing a degree and that it had not breached its duty of care towards Ms Fleming. The court also found that Ms Fleming had not suffered any relevant loss as a consequence of any alleged breach of duty by the university. The court concluded that Ms Fleming had not established a basis for the remedies that she sought. The court dismissed the applicant’s claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The University claims that it has not breached any duty to Ms Fleming and no relevant duty is properly pleaded in these proceedings.[5] Further, the University claims that Ms Fleming has not suffered any relevant loss as a consequence of any alleged breach of duty by the University so as to establish any cause of action.[6] The University’s position is that Ms Fleming did not establish that any particular act or omission was the basis of her cause of action in negligence and Ms Fleming did not link any such act or omission to any identifiable loss or damage.[7] The University denies any breach of a statutory duty of care.[5] Amended Defence (FDN 51).[6] Amended Defence (FDN 51).[7] Respondent’s Written Submissions dated 28 March 2025 (FDN 107) (“RWS”) at 2, [9].Background Ms Fleming completed a Bachelor of International Studies Degree on 30 October 2017. She also successfully completed all topics to graduate with a Bachelor of Laws Degree.[8] Ms Fleming did not however, complete the required topics to graduate with a Bachelor of Laws and Legal Practice degree. The outstanding topics that needed to be completed as at 2018 were LLAW7001 (Practical Legal Training: Legal Practice Management) and LLAW7002 (Practical Legal Training: Transactional Legal Practice).[9][8] Exhibit A63.[9] Exhibit A23. The matters set out below detail, in chronological form, matters that were considered in the course of the trial concerning Ms Fleming’s studies. These matters emerge largely from documents which were tendered at trial. The occurrence of the events to which the documents refer were largely undisputed at trial. What is in dispute is the details of the events that occurred and the reasons for those events occurring. I address separately, later in this judgment, by reference to the witness evidence the factual findings I make in respect of disputed aspects of the evidence. It was not in dispute at trial that it was a requirement of the University that, in the absence of an extension being granted, the degree in which Ms Fleming was enrolled was required to be completed within 10 years. On 15 December 2017, Ms Fleming was granted an extension beyond the 10-year limit to complete the Bachelor of Laws and Legal Practice degree. The extension was granted until the end of semester 2 of 2018.[10] This would have provided Ms Fleming with the opportunity to complete LLAW7001 and LLAW7002. Following successful completion of those two components, Ms Fleming would then have been eligible to graduate from the University with a Bachelor of Laws and Legal Practice degree.[11][10] Exhibit A23. [11] Exhibit A23. In semester 1 of 2018, Ms Fleming enrolled in the LLAW7002 topic. The topic included an optional engagement in a mentoring program which involved students being assigned into small groups and being allocated a mentor who was a member of the legal profession (“the Mentor Program”). The mentor’s role included meeting with the group on a regular basis during the topic and providing general guidance to the students in a group environment.[12] Ms Fleming was assigned to mentor group 13 (“the Mentor Group”).[12] Exhibit A15.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

As I explain in my assessment of the evidence, Ms Fleming’s version of various events differed from the accounts given by the witnesses called by the University. Evidence at trial Prior to considering the factual issues in dispute I make the following preliminary observations concerning the evidence of the witnesses. I also note that the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities applies and that is the standard I apply in making factual findings. Ms Fleming bears the onus of proof in establishing her claim.Ms Kim Fleming Ms Fleming gave evidence at trial. She did so in part by adopting her written witness statements and in part by oral evidence.[67] Ms Fleming’s oral evidence concerned, amongst other matters; the first mentor meeting, the events in the lecture theatre of 23 March 2018, and the second mentor meeting. For the reasons explained further below I do not accept the version of events that Ms Fleming gave in respect of these three events. Ms Fleming’s evidence differed markedly from that given by other witnesses called by the University.[67] Exhibits A73 and A94. Ms Fleming also gave evidence concerning the events in the lecture theatre on 4 May 2018. Her oral evidence about what occurred on that day was inconsistent with a number of other witnesses’ accounts. Ms Fleming’s evidence was to the effect that she did not do anything wrong, and she was unaware that she had done anything wrong.[68] This evidence is difficult to accept. It is inconsistent with the other evidence given by Ms Fleming in which she admitted that she refused to leave the premises even when she was informed by a security officer that police would be called.[69][68] T304.27-33.[69] T305.8-11. I have addressed below, in relation to each event, the reasons for rejecting Ms Fleming’s version of the events described above. I also have had cause to scrutinise carefully Ms Fleming’s evidence, because her evidence across numerous different events differed from that presented by other witnesses. I find on balance that it is unlikely that a number of other witnesses would be independently lying about such a number of different events. In relation to the topic of the extent to which appeals were instituted, and the case advanced that members of the University staff were acting recklessly or in concert to achieve a consequence of Ms Fleming being excluded from completing a Bachelor of Laws and Legal Practice degree, Ms Fleming claimed at various times that the documents supported her version of events. The documents upon which Ms Fleming relied to corroborate her perspective were either not produced by Ms Fleming,[70] or the documents which Ms Fleming pointed to simply did not support the inference that Ms Fleming sought to draw from them.[71] [70] For example, no documents were adduced by Ms Fleming to show that she appealed against the decision of 26 June 2018 upholding her fail grade for LLAW7002.[71] See for example the documents concerning Ms Fleming’s removal from the online learning portal: Exhibits A75, A76, A77, A78, A79, A80 and A81. See also, the documents concerning the application for an extension of the 10-year rule, which documents showed that Ms Fleming appealed this decision contrary to her initial assertion that she did not: T221, cf T359.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Ms Fleming has not established a basis for the remedies that she seeks.Conclusion I dismiss the applicant’s claim.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.