Legal Research
Cases
DEF v Trappett

DEF v Trappett

Case [2016] NSWSC 1698 2 December 2016

Jurisdiction

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: DEF v Trappett [2016] NSWSC 1698
Hearing dates: 11 to 12 October 2016
Date of orders: 02 December 2016
Decision date: 02 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
(1) The proceedings be dismissed;
(2) The matter be listed for argument on costs at 9.30am on Friday, 16 December 2016;
(3) On or before 4pm on 13 December 2016, the parties file and serve submissions on costs that are not to exceed three pages;
(4) There be liberty to apply.

Catchwords: DISCIPLINARY ACTION – church – priest – catholic priest challenges finding by church body that he committed sexual abuse – complaint that priest sexually exploited adult parishioner – complaint referred for assessment under “Towards Healing” – assessors found complaint substantiated – report referred to Archbishop for further action – Archbishop contemplating removal of plaintiff’s faculties – alleged denial of natural justice – whether Court has jurisdiction to hear complaint – basis for interference with disciplinary actions of private bodies – relations between parties not contractual – no church property involved – not shown that plaintiff’s emoluments at risk – no threat to livelihood – potential damage to plaintiff’s reputation from dissemination of report not sufficient to confer jurisdiction to “review” process that lead to production of report – Court had no jurisdiction to intervene – proceedings dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Anglican Church in Australia Constitution Act 1961 (NSW)
Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 (NSW)
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Criminal Justice Act (Qld)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (Qld)
Roman Catholic Church (Corporation of the Sister of Mercy of the Diocese of Cairns) Land Vesting Act 1945
Roman Catholic Church (Incorporation of Church Entities) Act 1954
Roman Catholic Church (Northern Lands) Vesting Act 1941
Roman Catholic Church Lands Act 1985
Roman Catholic Church Trust Property Act 1936
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Abela v Royal New South Wales Canine Council Limited trading as Dogs New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 242
Adamson v West Perth Football Club Inc (1979) 27 ALR 474
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; 175 CLR 564
Agricultural Societies Council of NSW v Christie [2016] NSWCA 331
Australian Football League v Carlton [1998] 2 VR 546
Buckley v Tutty [1971] HCA 71; 125 CLR 353
Cameron v Hogan [1934] HCA 24; 51 CLR 358
Carter v NSW Netball Association [2004] NSWSC 737
Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries [2010] NSWCA 190; 78 NSWLR 393
Clark v The Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane [1998] 1 Qd R 26
Darling Casino Ltd v New South Wales Casino Control Authority [1997] HCA 11; (1997) 191 CLR 602
Dickson v Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain [1970] AC 403
Ex parte; The Rev George King (1861) 2 Legge 1307
Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia v Broken Hill…

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 DEF v Trappett

Details

AGLC: DEF v Trappett [2016] NSWSC 1698
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1698
Decision Date: 02 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DEF v Trappett involved a challenge by a Catholic priest, DEF, against a finding by church authorities that he had committed sexual abuse against an adult parishioner. The dispute was brought before the court by DEF who sought to overturn the findings made by the church body. The court was tasked with determining whether it had the jurisdiction to hear DEF’s complaint and, if so, whether there were grounds for interfering with the disciplinary actions taken by the church.

The primary legal issues revolved around the scope of the court’s jurisdiction to intervene in the disciplinary processes of a religious body. DEF argued that the process that led to the substantiated complaint against him was unfair and denied him natural justice. The court needed to assess whether the relationship between DEF and the church was contractual or if there were other factors that could confer jurisdiction, such as the risk to DEF’s emoluments or livelihood. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the potential reputational damage from the dissemination of the report was sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The court held that the relationship between DEF and the church was not contractual, and there was no involvement of church property. Furthermore, it was not demonstrated that DEF’s emoluments or livelihood were at risk. The potential damage to DEF’s reputation from the dissemination of the report was not deemed sufficient to confer jurisdiction to review the process. Consequently, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to intervene in the church’s disciplinary actions, and DEF’s proceedings were dismissed.

Orders