Ellis v Pell [2006] NSWSC 109

Ellis v Pell [2006] NSWSC 109

Plaintiff established material facts of a decisive character regarding nature and extent of personal injury were not within means of knowledge until September 2001; action commenced within one year after grave economic consequences were apparent. Sufficient evidence exists to establish fair trial is possible against Trustees, but not against Cardinal Pell personally. Extension of limitation period granted against Trustees, motion dismissed against Cardinal Pell.

Parties
Plaintiff: John Andrew Ellis; First Defendant: His Eminence Cardinal George Pell Archbishop of Sydney for and on behalf of The Roman Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Sydney; Second Defendant: The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney; Third Defendant: Reverend Aidan Duggan OSB
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Motion Seeking Extension of Limitation Period and Related Relief / Judgment on Motion
Outcome
Limitation period extended for action against Trustees; motion dismissed against Cardinal Pell
Legal Topics
Extension of Limitation Period, Sexual Abuse, Vicarious Liability, Direct Liability, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Torts Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Extension of Limitation Period Sexual Abuse Vicarious Liability Direct Liability Breach of Fiduciary Duty

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Andrew Ellis

Plaintiff

His Eminence Cardinal George Pell Archbishop of Sydney for and on behalf of The Roman Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Sydney

First Defendant

The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney

Second Defendant

Reverend Aidan Duggan OSB

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion Seeking Extension of Limitation Period and Related Relief / Judgment on Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether limitation period for personal injury claim can be extended under s58 or s60G of Limitation Act 1969
  2. 2 Whether there is evidence to establish a cause of action in tort against the Defendants
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the nature and extent of injury within limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff established material facts of a decisive character regarding nature and extent of personal injury were not within means of knowledge until September 2001; action commenced within one year after grave economic consequences were apparent. Sufficient evidence exists to establish fair trial is possible against Trustees, but not against Cardinal Pell personally. Extension of limitation period granted against Trustees, motion dismissed against Cardinal Pell.

Court Disposition

Limitation period extended for action against Trustees; motion dismissed against Cardinal Pell

Orders

  • Extension until 30 August 2004 for limitation period for causes of action pleaded against Second Defendant
  • Notice of Motion seeking orders under Limitation Act against First Defendant dismissed with costs