Waks v Cyprys

The case of Waks v Cyprys involves a claim for damages by the plaintiff, Waks, against the defendant, Cyprys, for the psychological and psychiatric injuries arising from childhood sexual abuse suffered at the hands of Cyprys. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who was an employee of an institution during the time of the abuse, sexually abused the plaintiff over a period of time, causing significant ongoing psychological harm. The defendant admitted liability for the abuse but disputed the amount and nature of damages awarded.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the quantification of damages for the plaintiff’s ongoing psychiatric and psychological injuries, including pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of earning capacity, as well as the appropriate allocation of damages between concurrent tortfeasors. The court had to consider previous decisions such as Baxter v Obacelo, which deals with concurrent liability, and Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd, which addresses causation and remoteness of damages in tort law. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether any award for aggravated and exemplary damages was appropriate.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to significant general damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, reflecting the profound and long-lasting impact of the abuse. The court also awarded special damages for loss of earning capacity and medical expenses. In considering the allocation of damages among concurrent tortfeasors, the court applied the principles from Baxter v Obacelo and recognised that the plaintiff could seek contribution from other liable parties. The court declined to award aggravated and exemplary damages against the defendant, following the reasoning in Gray v Motor Accidents Commission and Carter & Anor v Walker & Anor, which established that such damages are not available in cases of institutional abuse. The court concluded with a detailed assessment of the appropriate quantum of damages, ensuring that the award was fair and just in the circumstances.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the assessed amount of damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of earning capacity, as well as medical expenses. The court also noted that the plaintiff could seek contribution from any other party found liable for the abuse.