John XXIII College v SMA

The appeal concerned a student who was sexually assaulted outside a nightclub after being directed to leave the premises of John XXIII College, a residential college at the Australian National University. The student brought proceedings against the College alleging negligence. The primary judge found that the College owed a duty of care to the student that extended to the directions it gave and the manner in which it handled complaints, and that the College had breached this duty, causing the student's psychiatric injury. The College appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that the College owed a duty of care to the student, and whether this duty extended to the directions given and the handling of complaints. The Court also considered whether the primary judge made errors in factual findings, whether breaches of duty were established on the evidence, and whether any such breaches caused the student's psychiatric injury. Further issues included whether the primary judge erred in failing to apply the presumption of contributory negligence under s 95 of the *Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002* (ACT), and whether damages awarded for economic loss, aggravated and exemplary damages were erroneous. The student cross-appealed, arguing that the general damages awarded were grossly inadequate, and also challenged the primary judge's costs orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the primary judge's judgment and substituted it with a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $267,500. The Court also set aside the primary judge's costs order and ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. The Court found that the College was liable for negligence, but reduced the damages awarded by the primary judge. The cross-appeal was dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs of the cross-appeal. The Court of Appeal ordered that the respondent (the student) pay the appellant's (the College's) costs of the appeal. Liberty was granted for parties to apply to vary the costs orders within 14 days.