Withyman v State of NSW & Anor [2010] NSWDC 186

Withyman v State of NSW & Anor [2010] NSWDC 186

The court accepted Ms Minato's evidence and the supporting circumstances and found that the plaintiff and the second defendant had a sexual relationship commencing before the end of April 2003 and continuing at least until September 2003 while the plaintiff was a student. That conduct was a breach of the second defendant's duty of care and sexual misconduct. However, the plaintiff's later assaults, threats, breaches of AVOs, imprisonment and associated consequences were caused, as a matter of common sense and legal causation, by his own choices and criminal conduct, not by the defendants' breach. The first defendant was not liable because the risk that the second defendant would change...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages and Cross Claims / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant; judgment for the second defendant against the first defendant on the first defendant's cross-claim; judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff on the second defendant's cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['sexual Relationship Between Student and Teacher' 'duty of Care Owed by Teacher and School' 'non Delegable Duty of School Authority' 'vicarious Liability' 'causation' 'consequences of Criminal Acts' 'intentional Torts' 'aggravated and Exemplary Damages' 'civil Liability Act 2002']
['torts' 'negligence' 'civil Liability' 'education Law' 'damages'] ['sexual Relationship Between Student and Teacher' 'duty of Care Owed by Teacher and School' 'non Delegable Duty of School Authority' 'vicarious Liability' 'causation' 'consequences of Criminal Acts' 'intentional Torts' 'aggravated and Exemplary Damages' 'civil Liability Act 2002']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Damages and Cross Claims / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a sexual relationship existed between the plaintiff and the second defendant while the plaintiff was a student at Carenne Public School.' 'Whether the second defendant breached her duty of care to the plaintiff by commencing a sexual relationship with him.' 'Whether the first defendant breached its own duty of care by permitting, condoning, knowing of, or failing to foresee and prevent the risk of the relationship.' "Whether the first defendant was vicariously liable or liable under a non-delegable duty for the second defendant's conduct." "Whether the plaintiff's criminal acts against the second defendant and their consequences were legally caused by the relationship or its termination." 'Whether contributory negligence or s 54 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 affected recovery.' 'What damages were recoverable by the plaintiff against the second defendant and by the second defendant on her cross-claim against the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted Ms Minato's evidence and the supporting circumstances and found that the plaintiff and the second defendant had a sexual relationship commencing before the end of April 2003 and continuing at least until September 2003 while the plaintiff was a student. That conduct was a breach of the second defendant's duty of care and sexual misconduct. However, the plaintiff's later assaults, threats, breaches of AVOs, imprisonment and associated consequences were caused, as a matter of common sense and legal causation, by his own choices and criminal conduct, not by the defendants' breach. The first defendant was not liable because the risk that the second defendant would change...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant; judgment for the second defendant against the first defendant on the first defendant's cross-claim; judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff on the second defendant's cross-claim.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $120,293.65.' "Judgment for the second defendant against the first defendant on the first defendant's Cross Claim against the second defendant." "Judgment for the second defendant against...