DZY (a pseudonym) v Trustees of the Christian Brothers

The appellant, DZY, sought to set aside settlement agreements entered into with the Trustees of the Christian Brothers concerning personal injury allegedly resulting from child abuse. These agreements had renounced DZY's claim for economic loss. The primary judge had set aside the deeds in their entirety, but the Trustees appealed this decision.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether s 27QE of the *Limitation of Actions Act 1958* (Vic) required the "Ellis defence" or the limitation period to have materially influenced the decision to settle for a court to be satisfied that it was "just and reasonable" to set aside a settlement agreement, specifically in relation to the renouncement of an economic loss claim.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that for a court to be satisfied that it is "just and reasonable" to set aside a settlement agreement under s 27QE, there must be a positive finding that the limitation defence or the Ellis defence materially influenced the claimant's decision to settle. The Court of Appeal had correctly identified that the mischief s 27QE sought to remedy was a settlement influenced by such legal barriers. Therefore, the actual influence of these barriers on the decision to settle is central to determining whether setting aside the agreement is just and reasonable. The primary judge's finding that it was "not possible to find that the limitations and the [Ellis] defence issues had no material influence" was insufficient to satisfy this requirement.