APC v Mr B (No 4) - [2025] NSWSC 273

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: APC v Mr B (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 273
Hearing dates: 8 – 10 October 2024, 27 February 2025
Date of orders: 26 March 2025
Decision date: 26 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
(1)   The defendant is to pay the plaintiff damages in the amount of $4,910,191.67.
(2)   The freezing orders upon the defendant made by Wright J on 4 August 2023 and continued by the Court on multiple occasions, be continued until payment of the judgment sum by the defendant.
(3)   The applicant is to file and serve any application for a gross sum costs order within 28 days of today.
(4)   The matter is listed for further directions before Schmidt AJ on 23 April 2025.
(5)   The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs from 6 March 2025 to date.

Catchwords:
DAMAGES – historical child sexual abuse –– where defendant did not respond to calculation of damages or proposed orders – where plaintiff’s calculations revised after order for recalculation of damages for future care –– plaintiffs recalculations and proposed orders accepted including in relation to an application for a gross costs order and continuation of a freezing order

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
APC v Mr B (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1608
APC v Mr B (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 142
Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 99
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1995) 57 FCR 119

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: APC v Mr B (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1608. In March 2025 I dealt with the damages and further orders which APC pursued, including as to costs, which totalled $6,070,722.25, ordering her to recalculate her damages for future care in accordance with the conclusions which I had reached: APC v Mr B (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 142.
APC recalculated her damages to be $4,910,191.67. By submissions advanced on 13 March she finally pressed damages of:

General and Aggravated Damages (at [33])

$425,000

Exemplary Damages (at [43])

$300,000

Past Expenses (at [49])

$10,000

Future Expenses (at [54])

$73,505.25

Past and Future Economic Loss (including Superannuation) (at [66], [68] and [71])

$1,429,373

Past Domestic Care (at [77] and [81])

$716,430

Future Domestic Care (at [97] to [101])* (see below)

$1,955,883

Damages Total:

$4,910,191.67

*The plaintiff calculates future care loss, having incorporated the Court’s findings on the 13 December 2024 judgment (APC v Mr B (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1608) and the 6 March 2025 (

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 4)

Details

AGLC: APC v Mr B (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 273
Case: [2025] NSWSC 273
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court of Australia involves a claim for damages against the defendant, Mr B, for historical child sexual abuse by the plaintiff, APC. The dispute centres on the calculation of damages, particularly for future care, and the associated legal costs. The Court was required to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff and to assess whether the plaintiff's revised calculations and proposed orders should be accepted.

The legal issues before the court included the correctness of the plaintiff's revised calculations for damages, the appropriateness of the proposed orders, and the merits of the application for a gross costs order. The court had to consider whether the defendant's failure to respond to the initial calculation of damages and the proposed orders warranted any specific considerations in the assessment of the plaintiff's revised calculations. Furthermore, the court needed to decide if the plaintiff's proposed orders, including the gross costs order and the continuation of a freezing order, were justified.

The court accepted the plaintiff's revised calculations and proposed orders, noting that the defendant's failure to respond did not undermine the plaintiff's entitlement to a fair assessment of damages. The court found that the plaintiff's recalculations for future care were reasonable and necessary following the earlier order for recalculation. Additionally, the court held that the gross costs order and the continuation of the freezing order were appropriate, given the circumstances of the case and the defendant's lack of response. The court thus granted the plaintiff's application for the revised damages and the associated orders.

The final orders of the court included the acceptance of the plaintiff's revised damages calculation, the imposition of a gross costs order in favour of the plaintiff, and the continuation of the freezing order. The defendant was required to pay the plaintiff the revised amount of damages, along with the associated costs, and to maintain the freezing order in place.

Orders