Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Oyston v St Patrick's College [2013] NSWCA 135 Hearing dates: 11, 12, 13 March 2013 Decision date: 27 May 2013 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Barrett JA at [2];
Tobias AJA at [3]Decision: Direct that the appeal be referred to the Registrar for the purpose of fixing a date for hearing of the outstanding issues of causation, damages and costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - personal injury - psychiatric/psychological harm - appellant bullied and harassed by other pupils at high school - whether cross-appellant aware that cross-respondent was being bullied - whether inadequate implementation of bullying policies - whether primary judge erred in finding that cross-appellant breached duty of care towards cross-respondent Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 Cases Cited: Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Naidu; ISS Security Pty Ltd v Naidu [2007] NSWCA 377; (2007) 71 NSWLR 471
Roman Catholic Church Trustees for the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn v Hadba [2005] HCA 31; (2005) 221 CLR 161Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jazmine Oyston (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
St Patrick's College (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)Representation: Counsel:
H Marshall SC and G J Smith (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
R Sheldon SC and S Glascott (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
Solicitors:
Lough & Wells Lawyers (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
Makinson & d'Apice (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
File Number(s): CA 2012/16667 Decision under appeal
- Citation:
- [2011] NSWSC 269
- Date of Decision:
- 2011-04-13 00:00:00
- Before:
- Schmidt J
- File Number(s):
- SC 2007/265225
Judgment
MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Tobias AJA.
BARRETT JA: I agree with Tobias AJA.
TOBIAS AJA: The appellant, Jazmine Oyston, was a student at St Patrick's College, Campbelltown ("the College") from 2002 to February 2005. In 2007, she brought a claim in negligence alleging that she had suffered psychological harm as a result of bullying by other students at the College.
On 13 April 2011, the primary judge, Schmidt J, gave judgment for the appellant. On 17 October 2011, her Honour made orders awarding damages in the sum of $116,296.60, plus interest. In these proceedings, the appellant appeals against that award. The College cross-appeals on liability. The appeal was set down for a two-day hearing which was wholly taken up with argument on the issue of breach of duty. Accordingly, the Court determined, and the parties agreed, that that issue be determined before the other issues including that of causation. Thus, on 13 March 2013 the appeal and cross-appeal in so far as they related to the primary judge's findings on causation, damages and costs, were adjourned to a date to be fixed.
As the nature and content of the duty owed to the appellant was not…
Continue reading Oyston v St Patrick's College
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Oyston v St Patrick's College [2013] NSWCA 135
- Case
- [2013] NSWCA 135
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the College breached its duty of care to Oyston. This involved determining whether the College had actual or constructive knowledge of the bullying and harassment experienced by Oyston, and whether the College's response and the implementation of its policies were reasonable in the circumstances to prevent foreseeable harm.
The Court of Appeal did not determine the substantive issues of liability or damages. Instead, it directed that the appeal be referred to the Registrar for the purpose of fixing a date for the hearing of the outstanding issues of causation, damages, and costs. This indicates that the appeal was proceeding, but the final determination of these matters was yet to occur.
Orders
Orders of the court
Direct that the appeal be referred to the Registrar for the purpose of fixing a date for hearing of the outstanding issues of causation, damages and costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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
Full text does not contain this section.