SMA v John XXIII College (No 2) - [2020] ACTSC 211

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	SMA v John XXIII College (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 211
Hearing Dates:	13 July 2020 – 29 July 2020
DecisionDate:	7 August 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [322]
Catchwords:	TORT LAW – NEGLIGENCE – Breach of Duty of Care Owed – Residential college duty to student – failure to stop drinking event – direction issued to students to leave the college in intoxicated state – failure to properly handle sexual assault complaint COMPENSATION – DAMAGES – General Damages – Past and future economic loss – past and future medical expenses – aggravated damages – exemplary damages
Legislation Cited:	Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 139H Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B
Cases Cited:	Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 Benic v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 1039 CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board; CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Scott [2009] HCA 47; 239 CLR 390 Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar & Ors [2009] NSWCA 258; 75 NSWLR 649 Govier v The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust [2017] QCA 12 Gray v Motor Accidents Commission [1998] HCA 70; 196 CLR 1 John XXIII College v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2016] ACAT 152 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254 New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57; 229 CLR 638 Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256 Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59; 207 CLR 562 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1996) 117 CLR 118 Waters v Winter and The University of New England [1998] NSWCA 248 Whitfield v De Lauret & Co Ltd (1920) 29 CLR 71 Zanner v Zanner [2010] NSWCA 343

Parties:	SMA (Plaintiff) John XXIII College (Defendant) John XXIII College Resident’s Association Inc (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel A Bartley SC with J Ronald (Plaintiff) J Chapman (Defendant) M Hutchings (Second Defendant)
Solicitors Shine Lawyers (Plaintiff) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Defendant) Barry Nilsson Lawyers (Second Defendant)
File Number:	SC 354 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

The plaintiff commenced a Bachelor of Advanced Science degree at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in 2014. Her original intention was to commence a law degree but her Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) of 98.2 was not sufficient for her to undertake this degree. In the same year, the plaintiff became aware of a combined Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Laws degree available at the Australian National University (ANU).

The plaintiff transferred her studies to ANU and took up residence in a college operated by the first defendant (‘John’s’). This college is an affiliate college to the ANU.

All of the proceedings involving the second defendant (the incorporated student association at John’s) resolved on the second day of the hearing. I will hereafter…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SMA v John XXIII College (No 2) 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] ACTSC 211
Decision Date: 7 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SMA v John XXIII College (No 2), the plaintiff, SMA, sued John XXIII College, a residential college, for alleged negligence in failing to stop a drinking event and for issuing a direction for students to leave the college in an intoxicated state. Additionally, SMA claimed that the college failed to properly handle a sexual assault complaint made against another student. The court was tasked with determining whether the college breached its duty of care owed to SMA, and if so, whether the college was liable for damages including past and future economic loss, past and future medical expenses, aggravated damages, and exemplary damages. The court had to examine the standard of care expected from the college in managing such events and in addressing allegations of sexual assault.

The legal issues before the court included whether the college owed a duty of care to SMA, whether there was a breach of that duty, and if the breach caused the plaintiff's damages. The court also had to assess the adequacy of the college's response to the sexual assault complaint. Furthermore, the court needed to decide on the quantum of damages, if any, that SMA was entitled to receive. The key consideration was whether the college's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable residential college in similar circumstances.

The court found that the college did indeed owe a duty of care to its residents, including SMA, and that this duty was breached. The failure to intervene in the drinking event and the inadequate handling of the sexual assault complaint were found to have contributed to SMA's injuries and distress. The court awarded SMA damages for past and future economic loss, past and future medical expenses, and aggravated damages. However, the court declined to award exemplary damages, finding that while the college's actions were negligent, they did not amount to conduct warranting such punishment. The college was ordered to pay SMA the specified damages as outlined in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [322]

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.