Frazer v State of Queensland [2026] QSC 82
FACTS
A claim for damages for personal injury was made by the Plaintiff, a schoolteacher, who allegedly suffered psychiatric injury from events that occurred in March 2021.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, three allegations of common assault had been made against her by the parents of two of her students. These allegations included the Plaintiff rubbing her students’ shoulders, lower back, tapping a student’s backside and whispering in another’s ear. The investigating officer noted to the prosecutor he was “happy for the matter to be referred back for adult caution if deemed appropriate by the court.” The Plaintiff was provided with an adult caution, and all charges were dismissed.
Notably, the Plaintiff was not aware that any allegations had been made against her until 24 March 2021. Justice Crow accepted the Plaintiff had no reason to think any charges would be laid against her, and so what occurred on 24 March 2021 was most unexpected by her.
On 24 March 2021, the parents of the first child again attended the school’s principal just prior to approximately 8:40am. The father left the meeting to find and confront the Plaintiff. The principal followed, requesting assistance from his deputy principals and the school’s Senior Constable.
The first child’s father approached the staff room and began banging on the door. The Plaintiff’s colleague asked the father if he needed assistance, to which he aggressively responded he was looking for the Plaintiff. The colleague then notified the Plaintiff the first child’s father was looking for her, and they locked themselves into the head of department’s office within the staffroom.
Eventually, the school’s principal, deputy principals and Senior Constable de-escalated the situation and escorted the father away from the scene.
As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff allegedly suffered a psychiatric injury.
Issues in Dispute
The Plaintiff submitted the school failed to take a precaution against the risk of injury that a reasonable person in such a position would have taken, including the principal using physical force to restrain or eject the father from the school by activating a lockdown and/or forewarning the Plaintiff via telephone.
Justice Crow highlighted, at the time of the incident, the school had over 1,700 students enrolled and around 200 staff. The meeting between the school’s principal and the father occurred before lessons had started for the day, with students and staff walking the grounds, rather than being in classrooms. The incident also occurred in front of the father’s child/alleged victim, and 50 other students and teachers who had gathered in the vicinity of the event.
Decision
Precaution 1 – Physical Ejection of the father
Justice Crow considered the person best equipped to determine if physical force was necessary and to implement such force was the school’s Senior Constable, rather than the principal. The Senior Constable considered the best approach was to “de-escalate the situation and have the gentleman remove himself from the school.”
Justice Crow accepted the Senior Constable’s evidence the situation did not warrant physical force, and it was not a reasonable precaution that could have been taken at the time.
Precaution 2 – Activating a lockdown
The Plaintiff submitted there was ample opportunity for the principal to activate a lockdown procedure when it became evident the father intended to confront the Plaintiff. However, there were only approximately 1 to 2 minutes between the father leaving the meeting and arriving at the staffroom. Justice Crow did not consider it reasonable to describe that time period as ‘ample opportunity’.
The Plaintiff noted that the lockdown procedure included a step in which she would leave the classroom to check whether other students needed to be brought in. She emphasised it is the teacher’s duty to ensure students are safely in a room.
Justice Crow therefore considered a reasonable person in the principal’s position would have “contemplated that an activation of the lockdown alarm, would have the effect of causing [the Plaintiff] and other teaching staff to go outside of the staffrooms and thus expose those persons to a greater danger than not activating the lockdown alarm.” It is therefore not a precaution a reasonable person would have taken.
Precaution 3 – Forewarning the Plaintiff via telephone
The Plaintiff submitted the principal could have communicated with the Plaintiff as to the father’s presence and desire to confront her through telephoning the staffroom, sending a text message or email to the Plaintiff’s phone, making an announcement over the school’s public address system, or requesting a member of the administration building to do the above in his place. It was accepted at Trial that some of the suggested forms of communication had difficulties (such as texting or emailing the Plaintiff or making an announcement over the public address system).
Justice Crow stated: “it has to be steadily borne in mind that [the principal] had between one and two minutes to deal with a very difficult and stressful situation and absent the aforementioned unreasonable precautions, [the principal] had in a one-to-two-minute period numerous other decisions to make as to how to deal with the emergency situation.”
The principal immediately requested the assistance of his deputy principals and telephoned the school’s Senior Constable whilst he was urgently walking towards the staffroom. Justice Crow considered this to be a more likely reasonable response than telephoning the staff room or the Plaintiff’s mobile phone.
Further, the warning provided to the Plaintiff by her colleague seems to be likely the same message the Plaintiff would have received through the above precautions.
Justice Crow considered that the Plaintiff would still have been subjected to the sudden shock of the incident and would have suffered significant distress, irrespective of whether the principal or her colleague had warned the Plaintiff.
Consequently, the Plaintiff’s case failed to establish both a breach of duty of the school and that any alleged omission materially caused her injury.
Case Commentary
This case demonstrates the high threshold required to establish a breach of duty of care in negligence, particularly where school authorities are required to make quick decisions during an escalating situation.
Although the Plaintiff suffered a genuine psychiatric injury following the confrontation with a student’s father, the Court emphasised that the existence of harm alone does not establish a breach of duty of care. Instead, liability turns on whether the defendant failed to take reasonable precautions that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have taken.
The Court carefully assessed each alleged precaution raised by the Plaintiff in light of the circumstances confronting the principal, including the limited one-to-two-minute timeframe, the presence of over 1,700 students and approximately 200 staff, and the need to manage a volatile situation without unnecessarily increasing risks to others.
Rather than evaluating the principal’s actions with hindsight, the Court recognised that emergency decisions must be judged according to what was reasonably foreseeable and practicable at the time. Justice Crow, accepting the Senior Constable’s evidence that de-escalation, rather than physical intervention, was the appropriate response, also highlights the importance of relying on those with relevant expertise.
Overall, the case confirms employers are not expected to eliminate every foreseeable risk but are required to respond reasonably and practicably in light of the circumstances. It also provides useful guidance to claims arising from emergency situations in educational settings, particularly where competing safety considerations and limited decision-making time constrain the available options.
Written by Caitlin Elwood, Law Graduate
