NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Cranbrook School v Stanley [2002] NSWCA 290 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40065/02 HEARING DATE(S) : 21 June 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 2 September 2002
PARTIES : Cranbrook School (Appellant) Garth Stanley (Respondent) JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Heydon JA at 2; Hodgson JA at 86
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 8411/99 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Gibson DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :
COUNSEL : Mr M Walton SC (Appellant) Mr C R R Hoeben SC/Mr P G Mahony (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Riley, Gray-Spencer (Appellant) Maurice Blackman Cashman (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : Tort - negligence - duty of care - personal injury - whether school "responsible for the care and welfare" of boarding students - in what sense school so responsible - absence of evidence directed to standards which should have been adopted by school - Limitation of actions - Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) - extension of limitation period - whether appropriate in particular circumstances - relevant considerations - ND LEGISLATION CITED : Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) Commonwealth of Australia v Dinnison (1995) 56 FCR 389 Commonwealth of Australia v Nelson [2001] NSWCA 443 CASES CITED: CRA Ltd v Martignagno (1996) 39 NSWLR 13 Harris v Commercial Minerals Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 1 O'Brien v O'Brien (1995) 35 NSWLR 664 Scarcella v Lettice (2000) 51 NSWLR 302 DECISION : See paragraph 85
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40065/02 DC 8411/99
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate