DEF v Trappett [2015] NSWSC 1840

DEF v Trappett [2015] NSWSC 1840

The proposed claims were not so hopeless that they should be struck out. The language of the Towards Healing protocols arguably manifested an intention to affect legal rights and obligations, because the protocols contained procedural safeguards for an accused cleric and the plaintiff's priestly ministry, reputation and financial benefits were at risk. The canon law claims also should not be struck out at this interlocutory stage because whether any enforceable civil rights arose under the Code of Canon Law during the assessment of abuse complaints should be determined at trial, and canon law may be relevant because the Towards Healing protocols require consistency with canon law. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application to Strike Out Pleadings and Application for Leave to File a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Notices of Motion
Outcome
The third defendant's strike out motion was dismissed, the plaintiff was granted leave to file a second further amended statement of claim, costs were reserved, claims for certiorari and production of documents were disallowed, and proposed joinder of sixth and seventh defendants was refused.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Pleadings' 'justiciability' 'voluntary Religious Organisations' 'towards Healing Protocols' 'canon Law' 'natural Justice' 'declaratory Relief' 'judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw)']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'religious Organisations' 'contract Law'] ['strike Out Pleadings' 'justiciability' 'voluntary Religious Organisations' 'towards Healing Protocols' 'canon Law' 'natural Justice' 'declaratory Relief' 'judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure Application to Strike Out Pleadings and Application for Leave to File a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Notices of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's claims concerning the Towards Healing protocols of the Catholic Church are justiciable." 'Whether the proposed second further amended statement of claim disclosed a viable cause of action or should be struck out under UCPR 14.28.' 'Whether procedural protections in the Towards Healing protocols arguably gave rise to enforceable contractual rights.' 'Whether claims concerning the Code of Canon Law should be struck out as non-justiciable.' "Whether the plaintiff's natural justice claim was arguable given alleged risks to his reputation, livelihood and ministry." 'Whether claims for certiorari and production of documents were available against private or domestic tribunals.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to join the Corporation of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Queensland and the Conference President of Catholic Religious Australia as sixth and seventh defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed claims were not so hopeless that they should be struck out. The language of the Towards Healing protocols arguably manifested an intention to affect legal rights and obligations, because the protocols contained procedural safeguards for an accused cleric and the plaintiff's priestly ministry, reputation and financial benefits were at risk. The canon law claims also should not be struck out at this interlocutory stage because whether any enforceable civil rights arose under the Code of Canon Law during the assessment of abuse complaints should be determined at trial, and canon law may be relevant because the Towards Healing protocols require consistency with canon law. The...

Court Disposition

The third defendant's strike out motion was dismissed, the plaintiff was granted leave to file a second further amended statement of claim, costs were reserved, claims for certiorari and production of documents were disallowed, and proposed joinder of sixth and seventh defendants was refused.

Orders

  • ["The third defendant's notice of motion filed 9 July 2015 is dismissed." 'The plaintiff is granted leave to file a second further amended statement of claim.' 'The second further amended statement of claim is to be filed and served on or before 16 December 2015.' 'Costs are reserved.' 'The matter is listed for...