Coat v Aves (Pseudonyms)

Case [2023] NSWDC 560

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Coat v Aves (Pseudonyms) [2023] NSWDC 560
Hearing dates: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 September, 11 October, 14 & 27 November 2023
Date of orders: 14 December 2023
Decision date: 14 December 2023
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Acting Judge Levy SC
Decision:

1. Verdict and judgment for the defendant;

2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis unless a party can show an entitlement to some other costs order;

3. The exhibits may be returned;

4. The non-publication order made on 18 September 2023 is to remain in place until the further order of the Court;

5. Liberty to apply for further or other orders if required.

Catchwords:

TORTS – intentional torts – claim by plaintiff of historical child sexual assault by defendant stepfather – denial by defendant – consideration of conflicting evidence – verdict and judgment for the defendant

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61M(2)

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 12A

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 55, s 56, s 60, s 64, s 66A, s 108(3)(b), s 128, s 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cwth), s 121

UCPR r 31.27(1)(c); Sch 7, cl 5(c)

Cases Cited:

Angel v Hawkesbury Council [2008] NSWCA 130

Blacktown City Council v Hocking [2008] NSWCA 144

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34

Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury Shire Council (2001) CLR 512; [2001] HCA 29

Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320

Dare v Pulham (1982) 1948 CLR 658; [1982] HCA 70

Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21

Goode v Angland [2017] NSWCA 311

Hasler v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] NSWCA 266

Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691; [1940] HCA 20;

HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414; [1999] HCA 2

Larson v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 126

Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1988] HCA 68

Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305

Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227

Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999) 197 CLR 269; [1999] HCA 22

Paric v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 58

Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12

R v XY (2010) 79 NSWLR 629; [2010] NSWCA 181

State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) & Ors [1999] HCA 3

Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15

The Queen v Bauer (a pseudonym) [2018] HCA 40

Twynam Agricultural Group Pty Ltd v Williams [2012] NSWCA 326

Warren v Gittoes [2009] NSWCA 24

Watson v Foxman [1995] 49 NSWLR 315

Yarrabee Coal Company Pty Ltd & Anor v Lujans [2009] NSWCA 85

Texts Cited:

Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings (1996)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ms Coat (a…

Continue reading Coat v Aves (Pseudonyms)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Coat v Aves (Pseudonyms) [2023] NSWDC 560
Case
[2023] NSWDC 560
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Coat v Aves involved a historical claim of child sexual assault by the plaintiff against the defendant, the plaintiff's stepfather. The defendant denied the allegations. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with Justice Kidd presiding. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had sexually assaulted her when she was a child, between 1990 and 1992. The defendant denied these allegations, asserting that they were false and fabricated. The court had to determine the credibility of the conflicting evidence presented by both parties and decide whether the plaintiff had successfully proven her claim on the balance of probabilities.

The legal issues the court had to address included the assessment of the credibility of the evidence provided by both parties, the application of the standard of proof in civil cases, and the consideration of the impact of the passage of time on the reliability of the plaintiff's testimony. The court also had to consider the legal and factual requirements for establishing a claim of historical child sexual assault, including the need to prove that the alleged events occurred and that the defendant was responsible for them. In reaching its decision, the court applied established principles of evidence and the law of torts.

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden of proving her claim on the balance of probabilities. The court concluded that the plaintiff's evidence was not credible and that there were inconsistencies and improbabilities in her account. The court also found that the defendant's evidence was credible and that he had successfully rebutted the plaintiff's allegations. The court therefore entered a verdict and judgment in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis unless a party could show an entitlement to some other costs order. The exhibits were ordered to be returned, and the non-publication order made on 18 September 2023 was to remain in place until further order of the court. The parties were granted liberty to apply for further or other orders if required.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Verdict and judgment for the defendant;

2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis unless a party can show an entitlement to some other costs order;

3. The exhibits may be returned;

4. The non-publication order made on 18 September 2023 is to remain in place until the further order of the Court;

5. Liberty to apply for further or other orders if required.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.