Double v The Salvation Army (Victoria) Property Trust

In the case of Double v The Salvation Army (Victoria) Property Trust, the plaintiff, self-represented, sought common law damages for breach of duty and vicarious liability, alleging that he had been groomed and sexually abused by an employee of the defendant during his residency at the Brayton Youth Hostel from 2002 to 2004. The defendant denied these claims, and the court had to determine the credit and reliability of the evidence presented by both sides. The case hinged on the applicable standard of proof in civil proceedings involving allegations of sexual abuse, specifically whether the plaintiff had met the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities.

The primary legal issue before the court was the standard of proof required in civil cases involving allegations of sexual abuse, and whether the plaintiff had satisfied this standard. The court considered the statutory and common law principles applicable to the burden and standard of proof, particularly the Briginshaw v Briginshaw principle and its application in cases involving sexual abuse allegations. The court also examined the evidence provided by the plaintiff and the defendant, including the contemporaneous records and the credibility of the witnesses. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's evidence was strong enough to meet the required standard of proof to warrant a finding in his favour.

The court found that the applicable standard of proof in civil cases involving allegations of sexual abuse was the civil standard as outlined in Briginshaw v Briginshaw and the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), s 140. The court noted that the burden of proof rested on the plaintiff to demonstrate the alleged abuse on the balance of probabilities. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to meet this standard. The court found the plaintiff's evidence to be lacking in credibility and reliability, and the defendant's evidence to be more persuasive. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's proceeding.

The court dismissed the proceeding and made no orders for costs.