Ada v State of Queensland

Case

[2023] QSC 159

24 July 2023


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Ada v State of Queensland [2023] QSC 159 [2023] QSC 159 24 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ada v State of Queensland, Ada brought an action against the State of Queensland for damages in negligence, claiming she suffered psychiatric injury as a result of two alleged sexual assaults that occurred in 1968 and 1973 while she was a child in the care of the State. The State was first informed of the alleged assaults in 2021 and has not been able to identify the alleged perpetrators or locate any records relating to the alleged assaults. The State applied for a permanent stay of the proceeding on the basis that a fair trial is not possible. The court was required to determine whether a permanent stay should be granted.

The court considered the evidence presented by Ada, which included affidavits from several witnesses who corroborated aspects of her account of the alleged assaults. However, the court also considered the evidence from Ms Hasse, who concluded that there were no persons from whom she could take instructions in respect of Ada's allegations of sexual assault. The court held that the State's inability to identify the alleged perpetrators, the lack of contemporaneous complaints or records, and the absence of any witness statements from anyone who witnessed either of the alleged sexual assaults, meant that a fair trial was not possible. The court also noted that the passage of time since the alleged assaults occurred further compounded the difficulties in conducting a fair trial.

Accordingly, the court granted a permanent stay of the proceeding and ordered that the judgment of the court in the proceeding be presented in a form which avoids disclosing information which would identify Ada. The court also ordered that all documents relating to these proceedings, including court documents, written submissions and transcripts of proceedings, are to be withheld by the court registry from search or inspection by any person other than a party to the proceeding or their legal representatives without an order of the court. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the stay application and of the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Civil Litigation & Procedure

  • Tort Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Limitation Periods

  • Admissibility of Evidence

  • Negligence

  • Expert Evidence

  • Compensatory Damages

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

18

Statutory Material Cited

5

Connellan v Murphy [2017] VSCA 116
Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34
Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34