Legal Research
Cases
TBH v Marist Regional College

TBH v Marist Regional College

Case [2025] TASSC 47 25 September 2025

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] TASSC 47

COURT:

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION:

TBH v Marist Regional College & Anor [2025] TASSC 47

PARTIES:

TBH

MARIST REGIONAL COLLEGE (ABN 60 165 188 918)

and

ROMAN

CATHOLIC

CHURCH

TRUST

CORPORATION

THE

ARCHDIOCESE

HOBART (ABN 24 097 986 470)

FILE NO:

1310/2024

DELIVERED ON:

25 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Hobart

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2025, submissions 13, 20 and 31 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF:

Daly AsJ

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure - Civil Proceedings in State and Territory Courts - Court supervision - Amendment of originating process and pleading - Application to amend a statement of claim - Proposed amended statement of claim fails to state with sufficient clarity the case that must be met - Application refused.

Aust Dig Procedure [1107]

Procedure - Civil Proceedings in State and Territory Courts - Parties and representation - Proper or necessary party - Civil Liability Act 2002 Part 10C provides for the appointment of a proper defendant for an unincorporated organisation only after proceedings have commenced.

Aust Dig Procedure [1149]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: B Hilliard
Defendants: S Young

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Shine Lawyers
Defendants: Barry Nilsson (Qld)

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 47
Number of paragraphs:	101

Serial No 47/2025 File No 1310/2024

TBH v MARIST REGIONAL COLLEGE (ABN 60 165 188 918) and ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TRUST CORPORATION OF THE

ARCHDIOCESE OF HOBART (ABN 24 097 986 470)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	DALY AsJ 25 September 2025
Introduction

1 By interlocutory application filed on 23 December 2024, the plaintiff has applied for leave to amend his statement of claim in accordance with the proposed amended statement of claim annexed to the interlocutory application. The defendants oppose the application on several bases. Very generally, the defendants submit that the proposed amended statement of claim (a) does not set up any proper basis upon which the first defendant is sued; and (b) that the second defendant was improperly joined, or named, as a defendant when the proceedings were commenced. Certain other miscellaneous defects are also identified.
2 During the course of the hearing of the interlocutory application it became clear that there are substantial disputes about who the plaintiff's action is against and how such claims are framed.

The principal proceedings

3             This action was commenced by writ and statement of claim filed on 21 May 2024. These are 'child abuse proceedings" for the purposes of the Civil Liability Act 2002, Part 10C Div 4. Only the second defendant has filed a defence, dated 8 July 2024.
4             The plaintiff alleges that throughout 1976 and 1977 when he was a student at Marist Regional College, he was sexually assaulted by Paul Goldsmith, who worked as an athletics coach. Goldsmith is not a party to this action because he is deceased. There is a dispute about whether Goldsmith was employed at the college.
5             The proceedings name two defendants. The first defendant is Marist Regional College, an unincorporated organisation which the plaintiff says he has…

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 TBH v Marist Regional College

Details

AGLC: TBH v Marist Regional College [2025] TASSC 47
Case: [2025] TASSC 47
Decision Date: 25 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

TBH v Marist Regional College is a case in the Supreme Court of Tasmania concerning an application by the plaintiff, TBH, to amend his statement of claim. The defendants, Marist Regional College and the Roman Catholic Church Trust Corporation of the Archdiocese of Hobart, oppose the application on various grounds. The plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim fails to address key issues raised by the defendants, including the clarity of the case against the first defendant and the proper appointment of the second defendant. The Court found that the plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim was prolix, confusing, and ambiguous, and did not sufficiently clarify the case against the defendants. The Court also found that the second defendant was not validly appointed as a proper defendant for the archdiocese before the commencement of proceedings. The application for leave to amend the statement of claim was refused. The Court will hear further submissions from the parties on the appropriate steps to be taken for the further case management of the action.

Orders