JUDGE:	O’Meara J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 & 26 August and 3 September 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 October 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	PCB v Geelong College
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 633

---

PERSONAL INJURIES — Institutional abuse — Whether perpetrator employee — Vicarious liability — Duty of care — Breach of duty — Damages — Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC (2016) 258 CLR 134 considered — A & B v Bird [2020] NSWSC 1379 considered — The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst v Koffman (1996) Aust Torts Reports 81-399 considered — Wrongs Act 1958(Vic) Part VB.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	FM McLeod SC with T Hammond	Rightside Legal
For the Defendant	JT Rush RFD QC with RL Kaye	HWL Ebsworth

HIS HONOUR:

A Introduction

The plaintiff was born on 12 February 1975. He is the youngest of three brothers. He attended primary school in Geelong, where his family lived. His parents worked in education. The family was close and supportive. In 1987, he commenced in Year 7 at Geelong College. His older brothers also attended the school.

In late 1988, when he was in Year 8, the plaintiff first attended the ‘House of Guilds’, which was on the grounds of the senior campus of the school. The plaintiff was then at school at the junior campus, which was nearby. The plaintiff attended the House of Guilds after school.

Broadly speaking, the House of Guilds was a building or complex of spaces fitted out to facilitate woodwork, ceramics and other crafts. It was open to students of the school and could be attended out of school hours. It was also open to students of other schools and members of the community upon the payment of a membership fee. The particular part of the House of Guilds at the focus of the present case was the ‘woodwork room’.

Bert Palframan was an honorary member of the House of Guilds. He attended the woodwork room regularly, although several witnesses gave evidence that he did not seem to be working on his own projects while he was there.

Palframan was in his early 70s at the time, and passed away in about 1999. The plaintiff contended that Palframan should be taken to have been, in effect, an employee of the school, however it is not apparent that he was ever trained as a teacher and he did not have any formal status as a teacher paid by the school.

It is not in dispute that on many occasions in the period between late 1988 and mid-1990 the plaintiff was sexually abused by Palframan. In essence, he was ‘groomed’ at the House of Guilds and the acts of abuse then came to occur…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading PCB v Geelong College

Details

AGLC: PCB v Geelong College [2021] VSC 633
Case: [2021] VSC 633
Decision Date: 1 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of PCB v Geelong College, the plaintiff, PCB, sued Geelong College for personal injuries sustained while at the school. The crux of the dispute was whether the college was vicariously liable for the actions of a staff member who allegedly abused PCB. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff contended that the defendant, Geelong College, was responsible for the alleged abuse and sought compensation for the injuries and associated damages. The central legal issues revolved around the determination of whether the alleged perpetrator was an employee of the college at the relevant time and whether the college owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, which was breached, causing the plaintiff's injuries. The court considered relevant case law, including Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC, A & B v Bird, and The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst v Koffman, in addition to the provisions of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic).

The court found that the alleged perpetrator was indeed an employee of the college at the time of the abuse, establishing the basis for potential vicarious liability. It was also determined that the college owed a duty of care to the plaintiff under the circumstances. The court scrutinised the evidence to ascertain whether this duty was breached, resulting in the plaintiff's injuries. In examining the elements of the case, the court applied the principles from Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC, which underscored the importance of the relationship between the school and the employee, as well as the context in which the alleged abuse occurred. The court found that the college had failed to implement adequate safeguarding measures, which constituted a breach of duty. This was further supported by the reasoning in A & B v Bird, which emphasised the significance of institutional responsibility in protecting students from harm.

Ultimately, the court held that Geelong College was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, who had caused personal injuries to PCB. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, reflecting the severity and impact of the abuse. The judgment highlighted the importance of institutions taking proactive steps to ensure the safety and well-being of their students. The court's decision underscored the legal obligation of educational institutions to prevent abuse and to hold themselves accountable for any failures in this regard.

Orders