For an increasing number of parents not only is schooling one of their highest priorities, it is also one of their biggest expenses.  The fees for private schools are a significant impost on the household budget and expectations, one assumes, for the quality of education received increase correspondingly.

Although it was decided in Western Australia, the recent case of Romeo versus Wesley College has national relevance. 

In that case the parents of two children who attended the Wesley College were sued by the college for $42,489.49 in outstanding school fees.  The parents did not dispute that they signed a contract which set out the manner in which the college would charge school fees.

The parents sought to justify non-payment of the fees on the basis that one of their children had been bullied over a three year period while at the school.  Not only did they say that they should not have to pay the outstanding fees, they sought in a cross claim repayment by the college of the over $60,000 they had already paid the college over the relevant three year period.

In mounting their defence and cross-claim the parents relied on a number of different arguments.  Most interestingly, they said that the college's "mission statement" implied fundamental terms into their contract with the college, which the college had breached by failing to implement appropriate bullying prevention policies.  They said that this amounted to a total failure of consideration, entitling them to a refund.

On the case put by the parents, the bullying suffered by their child certainly was prolonged.  They gave evidence that they reported at least 10 separate instances of bullying between 2008 and 2011 to the school, but continued paying fees because they didn't realise the full extent of the problem.

It was only in 2012 when they discovered the full extent of what they say had been occurring that they withdrew their child from the school.  They said that the child had been subjected to ridicule and name calling in front of staff members both in the school and on outings and camps with no action having been taken, and open ridicule in French class, again with no action being taken by the class teacher.

The parents said that as a result of the bullying, the school had failed to provide the child with a safe environment.  This in turn meant that the school had breached the implied fundamental terms in the contract meaning that there had been a total failure of consideration, and that therefore the outstanding amounts were not due, and that indeed the parents were entitled to a refund.

The court found against the parents.  It found that the very root of the contract was to provide education to the child. It was not disputed that the school did in fact provide an education, albeit the quality of that education was contested by the parents.  There was not in those circumstances a total failure of consideration and the fees were therefore due and payable.

The manner in which the proceedings were reported means that we don't have a detailed account of Wesley College's side of the story.

It was successful in the proceedings, but almost certainly didn't enjoy the publicity generated and undoubtedly dreaded having to pursue its fees in this manner. 

One of the things this case undoubtedly demonstrates is that, in this day and age, private schools are not only educational facilities, but that they are also big business.