So v Trustees of the De La Salle Brothers; MP v Trustees of the De La Salle Brothers

Two former residents of Boystown residential school have brought an application against the Trustees of the De La Salle Brothers, seeking orders for the trustees to provide answers in response to questions pursuant to s 27 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (PIPA). The applicants allege they suffered sexual abuse while in residence at the school. The trustees have put a series of questions to the applicants regarding the proper construction of s 27 of the PIPA. The parties have agreed to seven questions for the court to make a preliminary determination. The court was required to determine whether the trustees are obliged to provide information in relation to allegations in the amended Notice of Claim even if those allegations are liable to be struck out if contained in a pleading. The court was also required to determine whether specified information pertaining to the allegations would be struck out if contained in a pleading. Further, the court was required to determine whether the trustees are obliged to provide information with respect to allegations made in the amended Notice of Claim which go beyond the matters which the applicant needs to establish to make out their cause of action. The court was also required to determine whether the trustees are obliged by s 27(1)(b) of the PIPA to provide information on conduct of employees/members of the respondent other than those identified as perpetrators in the amended Notice of Claim, conduct of employees/members of the respondent at other facilities operated by the respondent, acts of abuse by employees/members of the respondent different in nature to the allegations of the applicant, events or conduct more than 10 years prior to the applicant commencing residence at Boystown. The court was also required to determine whether the trustees are therefore obliged to provide information about prior similar incidents involving the conduct of the types of employees/members or events outlined above. Lastly, the court was required to determine whether s 27(3) of the PIPA is satisfied by a statutory declaration and letter provided by the respondents in July/August 2022.

The court found that the trustees were obliged to provide information in relation to allegations in the amended Notice of Claim, even if those allegations are liable to be struck out if contained in a pleading. The court found that the specified information pertaining to the allegations would not be struck out if contained in a pleading. The court found that the trustees are not obliged to provide information with respect to allegations made in the amended Notice of Claim which go beyond the matters which the applicant needs to establish to make out their cause of action. The court found that the trustees are not obliged by s 27(1)(b) of the PIPA to provide information on conduct of employees/members of the respondent other than those identified as perpetrators in the amended Notice of Claim, conduct of employees/members of the respondent at other facilities operated by the respondent, acts of abuse by employees/members of the respondent different in nature to the allegations of the applicant, events or conduct more than 10 years prior to the applicant commencing residence at Boystown. The court found that the trustees are therefore not obliged to provide information about prior similar incidents involving the conduct of the types of employees/members or events outlined above. The court found that s 27(3) of the PIPA is satisfied by a statutory declaration and letter provided by the respondents in July/August 2022.

The court adjourned the application to a date to be fixed and reserved costs.