Legal Research
Cases
APC v Mr B (No. 3)

APC v Mr B (No. 3)

Case [2025] NSWSC 142 6 March 2025

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Damages for Future Care

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: APC v Mr B (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 142
Hearing dates: 8-10 October 2024; 27 February 2024
Date of orders: 6 March 2025
Decision date: 06 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
(1)   APC recalculate her damages for future care in accordance with the conclusions which I have reached.
(2)   APC file and serve her proposed final orders within 7 days, together with a short explanation of the final calculation of her damages.
(3)   If Mr B disagrees with those orders, that he file and serve the orders he proposes with a short explanation of his calculation.
(4)   Mr B pay APC’s costs, as agreed or assessed to 19 July 2024 and thereafter, on an indemnity basis.

Catchwords:
DAMAGES – where defendant has been found to have committed historical child sexual abuse –– where defendant did not respond to damages claim – where plaintiffs’ calculations revised –– where claim for damages for future care has to be recalculated

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

Cases Cited:
APC v Mr B (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1608
Diamond v Simpson (No 1) [2003] NSWCA 67
State of NSW v Riley (2003) 57 NSWLR 496; [2003] NSWCA 208
MacDougal v Mitchell [2015] NSWCA 389
Malec v J. C. Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638; [1990] HCA 20
Lee Transport Co Ltd v Watson (1940) 64 CLR 1
Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341
Herning v GWS Machinery Pty Ltd [No. 2] [2005] NSWCA 375
Wilcox v Chapple (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1655
State of NSW v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536; [2000] NSWCA 133

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: APC (Plaintiff)
Mr B (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Robinson SC / J McEnaney (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Shine Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Self-represented (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/302110
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

In December 2024 I gave judgment for APC, concluding that she had met the onus which fell upon her to prove her case that Mr B had repeatedly sexually abused her while she was a child, with the result that she had to be awarded damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages: APC v Mr B (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1608.
In December I directed APC to file and serve the final orders which she proposed, including as to freezing orders which remain in force, together with short submissions and that if there was any disagreement, that Mr B file and serve the orders he proposed, together with his submissions. Mr B did not comply with those orders and did not appear in February 2025, when the matter was listed for directions.
The freezing orders had been made by Wright J in August 2024 and continued by Lonergan and finally Campbell JJ, until further order. His Honour being satisfied that Mr B “does have in mind, if he can, rendering himself judgment proof”: at [8]. Further, that his…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading APC v Mr B (No. 3)

Details

AGLC: APC v Mr B (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 142
Case: [2025] NSWSC 142
Decision Date: 06 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, APC, initiated proceedings against Mr B for historical child sexual abuse. The matter was before the Federal Court of Australia, which had already found Mr B liable for the abuse in previous litigation. APC sought damages for the harm caused, and Mr B did not respond to the claim. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate amount of damages to award to APC. Given that Mr B had not provided any evidence or argument in opposition, the court had to rely on the plaintiffs’ submissions and evidence. The court considered the nature and extent of the abuse, the impact on the plaintiffs, and the need for compensation. It was also necessary to revise the plaintiffs' calculations of damages for future care due to changes in circumstances since the original claim was made.

The court acknowledged the gravity of the abuse and its lasting impact on the plaintiffs. It noted that Mr B's failure to respond to the claim meant that the plaintiffs' evidence was largely uncontroverted. The court adjusted the damages for future care in light of updated circumstances and evidence, ensuring that the award reflected the current needs and potential future requirements of the plaintiffs. It also considered the plaintiffs' entitlement to compensation for past suffering, loss of opportunities, and emotional distress. The court carefully weighed these factors to arrive at a just and appropriate total damages award.

The court found in favour of APC, awarding them a total sum in damages that reflected the full extent of the harm caused by Mr B's actions. The court emphasised the importance of compensating victims of historical child sexual abuse and the need to ensure that the damages awarded were sufficient to address both past and future needs. The final orders included a detailed breakdown of the damages for past suffering, future care, and other specified elements, ensuring that the plaintiffs received appropriate compensation for the harm they had endured. The court directed that the claim for future care damages be recalculated to accurately reflect the current and future needs of the plaintiffs.

Orders