BB v Helena College Council Inc t/as Helena College

In the case of BB v Helena College Council Inc t/as Helena College, the plaintiff, BB, sought damages for historical institutional child sexual abuse suffered at the hands of the defendant, Helena College. The dispute involved multiple issues concerning the liability of the defendant, the insurance companies involved, and the extent of damages. The primary legal issues the court had to address included the interpretation of insurance policies, the applicability of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA) and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) to the claim, and the assessment of damages for psychiatric injury. The court was also required to determine whether the injuries could be considered a single indivisible injury and to decide on the extent of liability of the defendant and the insurers.

The court found that BB's psychiatric disorders should be regarded as a single indivisible injury, following the principle established in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak. The court held that it was not possible to objectively apportion causative responsibility for BB's psychiatric conditions due to the cumulative effect of the sexual assaults, which occurred when BB was a child. The court accepted that each assault materially contributed to BB's injuries and rejected the insurers' arguments that certain injuries were attributable to periods outside their respective coverage periods. The court emphasised that the cumulative effect of the assaults made it impractical to separate the impact of individual assaults in terms of their contribution to BB's conditions. The court also rejected the insurers' attempts to apportion liability based on the timing of the assaults, finding that the psychiatric disorders were too intertwined to permit such a division.

The court ruled that the defendant, Helena College, was liable for the full amount of damages awarded to BB, and the insurers were also held jointly and severally liable for the entirety of BB's damages. The court rejected the insurers' submissions that they were only liable for a portion of the damages, finding that the injuries should be treated as a single indivisible injury. The court's decision was grounded in the impracticality of distinguishing between the injuries based on the timing of the assaults and the cumulative impact of the abuse on BB's mental health. The court awarded damages to BB, holding the defendant and the insurers jointly and severally liable for the full amount.

The court ordered the defendant and the insurers to pay BB the full amount of damages, including general damages for psychiatric injury, costs, and any other amounts as determined by the court. The insurers were held jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of damages, rejecting any attempts to apportion liability based on the timing of the assaults. The court's decision ensured that BB would receive full compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the historical institutional child sexual abuse.