APC v Mr B (No 5) - [2025] NSWSC 308

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: APC v Mr B (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 308
Hearing dates: 8 – 10 October 2024, 27 February 2025
Date of orders: 3 April 2025
Decision date: 03 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
No further orders.

Catchwords:
DAMAGES –– historical child sexual abuse –– 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 –– where defendant’s submissions were not received until after judgment published –– where no different result would have been arrived at had submissions been received earlier –– found no need for Court to act of its own motion to set judgment aside –– no further orders

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
APC v Mr B(No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1608
APC v Mr B (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 142
APC v Mr B (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 273

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, 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.
On 26 March I made further orders, including as to damages, having considered the further submissions advanced for APC and given Mr B an opportunity to respond to them, which he did not avail himself of: APC v Mr B (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 273.
APC subsequently approached to advise that submissions advanced for Mr B had been served on her. It emerged that they had not been filed. Mr B had attempted to have them sent to my associate, but they had inadvertently been sent to an incorrect email address. That was apparently not noticed until after the 26 March judgment was read.
I was then supplied with those submissions, which:

Rejected the calculation of damages and orders advanced for APC, without explanation, other than why Mr B considered that the evidence on which they had been based, which had been dealt with in the earlier judgments, was untrue;

Explained his continued belief that APC and witnesses she had called had given various untrue evidence in their unlawful pursuit of money from him;

Explained his opinions about APC’s true capacity and circumstances, which he sought to support by many photos of her which accompanied the submission. They depicted her…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: APC v Mr B (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 308
Case: [2025] NSWSC 308
Decision Date: 03 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings involved a case where a plaintiff sought damages for historical child sexual abuse against the defendant. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff had initially calculated the damages for future care, which was subsequently revised. The court was required to determine whether the revised calculations and proposed orders were acceptable. This included an application for a gross costs order and the continuation of a freezing order.

The court had to decide whether the plaintiff's revised calculations for future care were reasonable and whether the proposed orders were appropriate. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the defendant's submissions, which were filed late, could affect the outcome. The court concluded that the revised calculations were reasonable and that the proposed orders were acceptable. The defendant's late submissions did not change the outcome as the court found that no different result would have been reached if they had been received earlier. The court also determined that there was no need to set the judgment aside of its own motion.

The court accepted the plaintiff's revised calculations and the proposed orders, including the gross costs order and the continuation of the freezing order. The court noted that the defendant's late submissions did not warrant a different outcome. The court found no need for its own motion to set the judgment aside, and as a result, no further orders were made.

Orders