TT v The Diocese of Saint Maron, Sydney & SS (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 943

TT v The Diocese of Saint Maron, Sydney & SS (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 943

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff was sexually abused by the second defendant in October 2005, relying on core consistencies in the plaintiff’s and complaint evidence and the context of trust and authority created by the defendant's church role. While negligence was not established due to lack of reasonable notice of risk by the first defendant, the Diocese as institutional principal was vicariously liable for the acts of the non-employee second defendant, following Bird v DP, because the authority, power, and opportunity provided by the church relationship created both the occasion and the risk for the wrongdoing.

Parties
Plaintiff: TT; First Defendant: The Diocese of Saint Maron, Sydney; Second Defendant: SS
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Historical Child Sexual Abuse Claim, Tort, Civil Damages / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff, damages awarded, costs awarded, funds to be paid into court.
Legal Topics
Intentional Torts, Child Sexual Abuse, Vicarious Liability, Assessment of Damages, Admissions, Complaint Evidence, Aggravated Damages
Torts Evidence Negligence Damages Intentional Torts Child Sexual Abuse Vicarious Liability Assessment of Damages +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TT

Plaintiff

The Diocese of Saint Maron, Sydney

First Defendant

SS

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Historical Child Sexual Abuse Claim, Tort, Civil Damages / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the alleged sexual abuse by the second defendant occur?
  2. 2 Is the first defendant vicariously liable for acts of the second defendant under the church relationship?
  3. 3 Is the first defendant negligent for failing to prevent the abuse?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff was sexually abused by the second defendant in October 2005, relying on core consistencies in the plaintiff’s and complaint evidence and the context of trust and authority created by the defendant's church role. While negligence was not established due to lack of reasonable notice of risk by the first defendant, the Diocese as institutional principal was vicariously liable for the acts of the non-employee second defendant, following Bird v DP, because the authority, power, and opportunity provided by the church relationship created both the occasion and the risk for the wrongdoing.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff, damages awarded, costs awarded, funds to be paid into court.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants, jointly and severally, in the sum of $1,480,251.65.
  • The judgment sum is to be paid into court within 28 days and is to remain in court until further order.