When the bell isn’t the end: the expanding duty of care in T2 (by his tutor T1) v State of New South Wales
16 Sep 2026
The recent NSW Court of Appeal decision in T2 (by his tutor T1) v State of New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 1347 demonstrates how a school’s duty to manage student safety, extends after the bell and beyond the gate. Although a New South Wales case, the principles are instructive for Western Australian schools and education authorities, particularly regarding foreseeability, supervision, and risk assessment obligations.
The facts
T2, a 14‑year‑old student with known vulnerabilities including Autism Spectrum Disorder, was violently assaulted by approximately 12 other students after school, in a nearby park adjacent to the bus stop. The instigator, “XY,” had just returned from a long suspension for a prior violent assault, but:
- No proper risk assessment was conducted before his return.
- No teachers were on crossing/bus duty at the time students were still congregating.
- The school office closed at 3:15pm for a staff meeting, leaving T2 unable to seek help when he sensed danger.
T2 attempted to obtain assistance from the school office and texted his mother, whose calls to the school twice went unanswered. When the bus arrived, students blocked T2 from boarding and led him to the park, where the assault occurred.
The Outcome
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision that the school breached its duty of care. Key findings included:
- A school owes a duty of care to:
- vulnerable students such as those school students who have physical or psychological issues.
- to keep students safe from being bullied and assaulted by other students.
- perform a proper risk assessment to school students who have been granted a long suspension before allowing them to return from that long suspension.
- to keep the administrative office open at the end of day for a longer period so that students who find themselves in difficulty can seek help and safety there.
- to provide supervision in and around the school for the safe passage of students for their journey to home from school.
It was found that the school owed T2 a heightened standard of care because of his recognised vulnerability. Although the failure to conduct a proper risk assessment of XY was not the most significant breach, it reflected a broader pattern of inadequate protective measures. Importantly, it was found that the school’s duty of care extended beyond the physical school grounds and ordinary school hours where there was a clear and close connection to school‑related risks, such as the afternoon bus area.
The critical breach arose from the absence of teacher supervision near the bus stop at the relevant time; both experts agreed that if teachers had been present, their presence would likely have deterred the assault or halted it before it escalated. The fact that only around 70 students caught the bus did not diminish the school’s obligation to ensure their safety.
It also would have been reasonable to keep the administrative office open until 4:00 pm, so vulnerable students had a safe place to seek help, closing it earlier removed an important safety mechanism.
What does this mean for schools and how can they make changes to ensure they are meeting their duty of care?
(a) After‑school supervision
Where students congregate near bus stops, crossings, drop‑off zones or adjacent parks, schools may be expected to implement reasonable supervision until students have safely dispersed. This is especially so where:
- similar areas have been sites of prior misbehaviour or violence;
- the school knows of particular interpersonal tensions or bullying risks;
- vulnerable students are involved.
(b) Managing known high‑risk students
If a student has a history of violence, the failure to conduct a formalised, documented risk assessment may constitute a breach. The judgment stresses that informal impressions or “gut feel” assessments by staff are insufficient where expert recommendations exist.
(c) Accessible help points after the bell
A closed office and unanswered phones at a time when students remain in the vicinity were significant factors in the finding of breach. Schools should ensure:
- an open and staffed office or equivalent escalation point for a reasonable period after class finishing times (in the case there was reference to the office being open to 4:00pm being sufficient);
- clear communication pathways for parents and students during predictable after‑school congestion periods.
(d) Applying these duties to other contexts
These principles may extend to:
- sporting carnivals and after‑school extracurricular events;
- designated public transport routes adjacent to school property;
- early‑morning arrival periods before formal supervision begins.
Schools cannot eliminate all risk, and the court emphasised they are not insurers of student safety. But the duty requires reasonable, proactive and systematic precautions where harm is foreseeable, particularly where student vulnerability, past incidents, or known behavioural issues raise the risk profile.
This article was written by Sophia Ranson, Lawyer, Insurance and Risk.