Drollet v Trustees of the Marist Bros

In the matter of Drollet v Trustees of the Marist Bros, the Federal Court of Australia was presented with an application by a convicted felon seeking leave to initiate civil proceedings in relation to an alleged tort. The applicant, Drollet, sought to bring the action outside of the relevant statutory limitation period, under the doctrine of equity to act nunc pro tunc. The Trustees of the Marist Bros, the respondents, opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated a prima facie case and that expert evidence was insufficient to support the claim. The court was required to determine whether Drollet had demonstrated a prima facie case and whether expert evidence could support the claim. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the application should be granted in the interests of justice.
The court found that Drollet had demonstrated a prima facie case, supported by expert evidence, that satisfied the requirements for the doctrine of equity to act nunc pro tunc. The court formed a broad impression of the merits of the case and considered the prospects of success for the applicant. In coming to this conclusion, the court held that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to support the claim and that the application should be granted in the interests of justice. The court was satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on the merits and that the application should be allowed. The court also found that the respondent's opposition to the application was not sufficient to outweigh the applicant's right to access justice.