HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GLEESON CJ,
GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJSTATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES APPELLANT
AND
ANGELO LEPORE & ANOR RESPONDENTS
New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4
6 February 2003
S108/2002ORDER
1. Appeal allowed in part.
2. Paragraph 2 of the order of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales made on 23 April 2001 set aside, and in its place, order that the judgment entered in the District Court on 16 April 1999 be wholly set aside and that there be a new trial.
3. Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal to this Court.
4. Costs of the new trial to abide its outcome.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Representation:
M G Sexton SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales with C T Barry QC and N L Sharp for the appellant (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of New South Wales)
A S Morrison SC with J Oakley for the first respondent (instructed by Milicevic Solicitors)
No appearance for the second respondent
Interveners:
B M Selway QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia with J G Masters intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of South Australia)
B M Selway QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia with J C Pritchard intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GLEESON CJ,
GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJMatter No B20/2002
VIVIAN CHRISTINA SAMIN APPELLANT
AND
STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS RESPONDENTS
Matter No B21/2002
SHEREE ANNE RICH APPELLANT
AND
STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS RESPONDENTS
Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland
6 February 2003
B20/2002 & B21/2002ORDER
Appeals dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland
Representation:
D O J North SC with R C Morton for the appellants (instructed by Shannon Donaldson Province Lawyers)
P A Keane QC, Solicitor-General of the State of Queensland with P J Flanagan for the first and second respondents (instructed by Crown Solicitor of the State of Queensland)
No appearance for the third respondent
Interveners:
B M Selway QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia with J G Masters intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of South Australia)
B M Selway QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia with J C Pritchard intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
GLEESON CJ.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read New South Wales v Lepore and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2003] HCA 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the High Court included determining the nature and scope of a school authority's non-delegable duty of care towards its students, particularly in relation to the risk of harm posed by its employees. The Court was also required to consider the principles governing vicarious liability, specifically whether the teacher's assault on the pupil occurred in the course of employment such that the school authority could be held vicariously liable. Furthermore, the Court had to address procedural issues arising from the trial, including whether necessary findings of fact had been made.
The High Court held that a school authority does owe a non-delegable duty of care to its students, which extends to ensuring that reasonable care is taken to prevent foreseeable harm, including harm caused by the tortious acts of its employees. However, the Court found that the trial judge had failed to make essential findings of fact necessary to determine liability, particularly regarding the circumstances of the assault and whether it occurred within the scope of the teacher's employment. Consequently, the Court concluded that a retrial was necessary to properly adjudicate the claims.
The appeal was allowed in part. The order of the Court of Appeal was set aside, and in its place, the judgment entered in the District Court was wholly set aside, with a new trial ordered. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the High Court appeal, and the costs of the new trial were to abide its outcome.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed in part.
2. Paragraph 2 of the order of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales made on 23 April 2001 set aside, and in its place, order that the judgment entered in the District Court on 16 April 1999 be wholly set aside and that there be a new trial.
3. Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal to this Court.
4. Costs of the new trial to abide its outcome.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: GLEESON CJ
Full text does not contain this section.