Fazldeen v State of NSW [2025] NSWDC: School Abuse Law Update

In the recent matter of Fazldeen v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWDC 41, the plaintiff, Mr Jordon Fazldeen, commenced court proceedings seeking damages against the defendant, the State of New South Wales, for injuries he alleges he suffered whilst a student at Lightning Ridge Central School.

On 26 May 2010, the Plaintiff, who was then 16 years of age, returned to his original school, Lightning Ridge Central School, part way through year 11. Ms Maree Walford (“Ms Walford”) was then aged 22 years and was a casual employee of the School. She had worked there as a volunteer earlier in the year and commenced either as a “teacher’s aide” or “administrative assistant”, or both, on 4 May 2010. Lightning Ridge is a small town. As might be expected, various members of the Plaintiff’s and Ms Walford’s families knew each other. It seems clear enough that Ms Walford had met the Plaintiff earlier than May 2010. She remembered this at the time, but the Plaintiff did not.

The Plaintiff alleges that shortly after 26 May 2010, he had a relationship with Ms Walford, firstly of a sexual nature which quickly developed into a more meaningful, intense romantic relationship. The existence of that relationship, insofar as it is alleged to have been sexual or romantic, is denied by Ms Walford and is the threshold issue in this case. The Plaintiff’s evidence is that, at Ms Walford’s insistence, they tried to keep the relationship secret, because Ms Walford told him that if they were found out she would get in trouble and, in particular, would “lose her job”. Ms Walford accepts that she and the Plaintiff were friends and spent some time outside school together. From time to time, she took the Plaintiff driving in her car (known locally as “lapping”), they saw each other at parties, at the football, at the hotel, and that they hugged as friends from time to time.

By September 2010, it is beyond doubt that salacious rumours, to the effect that some sort of inappropriate relationship existed between the Plaintiff and Ms Walford, were circulating throughout Lightning Ridge. By 3 September 2010, those rumours came to the attention of the principal of the School, Dr Tome. It was the Plaintiff’s mother who, on 3 September, brought them to his attention. She told him that the rumours were fact. Dr Tome reported the matter to those responsible for dealing with such issues within the Department of Education, and Ms Walford’s employment was terminated. At around this time, Ms Walford broke off the relationship. By 6 September 2010, an investigation conducted by people in the Department not associated with the School had commenced. Ms Walford wrote a letter to the investigators denying the allegation and she gave evidence to the same effect at the hearing. Despite being asked to do so, the Plaintiff declined to take part in the investigation. The investigation identified no wrongdoing by Ms Walford, and she was exonerated. She has gone on to have a commendable career in education.

The Plaintiff seeks damages against the State for psychiatric injuries he contends were caused by the relationship and in particular the trauma he suffered when it ended in September 2010. On the Plaintiff’s case, the sexual relationship was entirely and enthusiastically consensual. It took place at a time when he was 16 and Ms Walford was 22 and was employed at the School but was not a schoolteacher and had no direct or indeed indirect contact with the Plaintiff so as to teach him anything. To the extent that she was a teacher’s aide, she worked with kindergarten children.

The case as originally pleaded raised novel and difficult questions of law. The original claim included a plea that the alleged conduct of Ms Walford amounted to “sexual abuse” of the Plaintiff by Ms Walford for which the State was vicariously liable. The proposition that the conduct was “sexual abuse” depended entirely on the premise that Ms Walford was something akin to a teacher at the School at the time and therefore, it was submitted that the question of consent fell away because the provisions of s 73(3)(b) and (b1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act”) are imposed onto the law of consent for the purpose of the tort of battery. That submission confronted a number of apparent difficulties, not the least of which being that the Crimes Act was amended to include that particular section well after the events in question. At the relevant time, the Crimes Act relevantly provided by section 73, that sexual intercourse with a child between 16 and 18 “under special care” could not legally occur even with consent, if relevantly “the offender is a schoolteacher, and a victim is a pupil of the offender”: section 73(3)(b) as it stood between 9 July 2010 to 9 September 2010.

On the second day of the hearing, the Plaintiff abandoned the claim against the State based on the allegation that it was vicariously liable for the alleged “sexual abuse” or “battery” by Ms Walford of the Plaintiff, which left as the only issue for determination, a claim directly against the State for breach of duty of care. That case is not based on any vicarious liability of the State for any conduct of Ms Walford. It is a claim for breach of duty of care by the Department, based on an alleged failure to report “concerns” by various members of staff. The Plaintiff’s case is that Dr Tome ought to have been aware of the rumours earlier than he was, and therefore ought to have either terminated Ms Walford and put in place the investigation procedure that was ultimately carried out, or at least “had a word” to Ms Walford, which would have caused her to bring the relationship to an end. Either way, the consequence would have been an end to the relationship between Ms Walford and the Plaintiff at an earlier point in time than in fact it ended, which, so the argument goes, would have meant that the Plaintiff would not have suffered the psychological harm that the evidence establishes he suffered as a result of the trauma he experienced when the relationship in fact came to an end.

In its consideration, the Court provided as follows at [121] to [124]:

As to credibility, Ms Walford presented honestly and candidly. It is true that she has led a blameless life both before and since the alleged events in the education sector, which, I think, allows me to consider that the conduct she is alleged to have taken part in is less likely to have occurred because it is out of character.

I find it entirely irreconcilable that Ms Walford was apparently very concerned to keep the relationship secret, whilst at the same time happy to drive openly around town with the Plaintiff, stopping to talk to acquaintances. I do consider the Plaintiff was dishonest as to why he was not involved in the investigation and the possession of a gun.

The Plaintiff bears the onus of proof. Having considered the matter carefully, I find myself not persuaded to any level of satisfaction that could be described as more probable than not that there was a sexual relationship between Ms Walford and the Plaintiff as alleged or at all.

There is just too much doubt in the Plaintiff’s case and compelling evidence in the shape of Ms Walford’s evidence to allow me to conclude on the balance of probabilities that there was a sexual relationship between the Plaintiff and Ms Walford as alleged. Whilst it is not necessary to go this far, I am satisfied that the alleged sexual relationship probably did not happen.

As to the reporting of concerns issue, the Court provided at [140]:

I am not satisfied that the level of concern…held was to the level required by the Code for her to mandatorily report it. Nor do I consider it would have been reasonable for her to have done so, so as to amount to a failure to take reasonable precautions against the risk of harm.

Ultimately, on 7 March 2025, the New South Wales District Court ordered as follows:

1. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
2. Judgment for the Defendant.
3. The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings.

We are specialist abuse lawyers and can help you receive acknowledgement, meaningful apology and financial resolution from those institutions and systems of power that failed to protect you from harm. If you would like advice in relation to a childhood or adult sexual, physical and/or psychological/emotional abuse claim in any jurisdiction in Australia, please reach out to Littles Lawyers today. 

Further Abuse Law information and case law updates can be found on our website.