JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1-5 August 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 September 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	GGG v YYY
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 429

---

PERSONAL INJURY – Sexual abuse of boy aged 11-13 by uncle – Delay of 33 years in instituting proceedings – Tendency evidence – Circumstances of sequential abuse – Defendant declining to be cross-examined on grounds of the privilege against self-incrimination – Ongoing psychological consequences of abuse – Loss of enjoyment of life – Effect of abuse upon plaintiff’s capacity to bring proceeding – Extension of limitation period – General damages for pain and suffering – Aggravated damages – Exemplary damages – Special damages – ss 27K and 27L Limitation of Actions Act 1958 – s 97 Evidence Act 2008 – Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 – Carter & Anor v Walker & Anor [2010] VSCA 740.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T Tobin SC with Ms B Knoester	Holding Redlich
For the Defendant	Mr J Ruskin QC with Ms A Magee	Rigby Cooke

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The plaintiff........................................................................................................................................ 3

The defendant..................................................................................................................................... 9

The incidents..................................................................................................................................... 10

Tendency evidence.......................................................................................................................... 22

Did the abuse occur?........................................................................................................................ 27

Medical evidence.............................................................................................................................. 32

Dr Tom Kerrihard....................................................................................................................... 32
Dr Christopher Mulroney.......................................................................................................... 38
D R W Farnbach........................................................................................................................... 39
Dr Michele Roberts..................................................................................................................... 41
Dr David Weissman.................................................................................................................... 42
Dr Michael Saling........................................................................................................................ 43
Conclusions concerning medical evidence............................................................................. 44

Loss of enjoyment of life................................................................................................................ 45

Extension of the limitation period................................................................................................ 46

Critical Dates................................................................................................................................ 46
When did the cause of action become statute-barred?.......................................................... 46
The application to extend the limitation period.................................................................... 49

Legal principles......................................................................................................................... 51

Synthesis....................................................................................................................................... 55

(a)  the length of and reasons for the delay on the part of the plaintiff....................................... 55
(b)  the extent to which, having regard to the delay, there is or is likely to be prejudice to the defendant       56
(c)  the extent, if any, to which the defendant had taken steps to make available to the plaintiff means of ascertaining facts which were or might be relevant to the cause of action of the plaintiff against the defendant.................................................................................................................................................. 58
(d)  the duration of any disability or legal incapacity of the plaintiff arising on or after the date of discoverability.................................................................................................................................................. 59
(e)  the time within which the cause of action was discoverable................................................ 59
(f)  the extent to which the plaintiff acted promptly and reasonably once the plaintiff knew that the act or omission of the defendant, to which the injury of the plaintiff was attributable, might be capable at that time of giving rise to an action for damages......................................................................................... 61
(g)  the steps, if any, taken by the plaintiff to obtain medical, legal or other expert advice and the nature of the advice he or she may have received........................................................................................... 61
Section 27L(2) (a) whether the passage of time has prejudiced a fair trial of the claim; (b) the nature…

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 GGG v YYY

Details

AGLC: GGG v YYY [2011] VSC 429
Case: [2011] VSC 429
Decision Date: 1 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, GGG, brought a claim against the defendant, YYY, alleging sexual abuse during the plaintiff's childhood. The abuse occurred when the plaintiff was aged between 11 and 13 years old. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Smith. The plaintiff sought damages for the sexual abuse, which allegedly caused ongoing psychological consequences and loss of enjoyment of life.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the admissibility of tendency evidence, the impact of the plaintiff's delay in instituting proceedings, and the extent to which the defendant's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination affected the case. The court also needed to determine the appropriate quantum of damages, including general, aggravated, and exemplary damages, as well as special damages.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was credible and that the defendant had sexually abused the plaintiff. Despite the delay in bringing the proceedings, the court accepted that the plaintiff's ability to bring the proceeding was significantly affected by the abuse. The court admitted tendency evidence to show the circumstances of the sequential abuse. The defendant's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination did not prevent the court from considering the evidence against the defendant. The court awarded general damages for pain and suffering, aggravated damages, and exemplary damages. Special damages were also awarded. The court extended the limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 and applied the Briginshaw principle in assessing the credibility of the plaintiff's evidence.

The court ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff, including general damages for pain and suffering, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, and special damages. The court also ordered the defendant to pay costs of the proceeding.

Orders