VICTIM CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES REGARDLESS OF PREVIOUS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
This case involves the plaintiff who was sexually abused by a priest and brings this present action against the defendant claiming damages for personal injury suffered as a consequence of the abuse despite having a previous settlement agreement with such defendant.
Facts:
The plaintiff alleges that in the period 1977 to 1980, when he was between the ages of about 11 and 14, he was repeatedly sexually abused (‘the abuse’) by Daniel Hourigan (‘Hourigan’), who worked at the time as a priest in the Warragul Catholic Church, within the Catholic Diocese of Sale (‘the Diocese’). He brings this proceeding claiming damages for personal injury suffered as a consequence of the abuse.
In 1996 the plaintiff made a claim against Bishop Coffey as Bishop of the Diocese in relation to the abuse, in a proceeding issued in the County Court of Victoria (‘the County Court proceeding’). That proceeding settled, and the plaintiff and Bishop Coffey entered into a Deed of Release dated 19 November 1996 (‘the Deed’). In the current proceeding, the defendant pleads that the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the Deed.
Issue:
Is the plaintiff barred from claiming damages for personal injury suffered as a consequence of the abuse by entering into a Deed on 1996?
Law:
- s 27QE of the Limitation Act, which gives the court power to set aside a previous judgment or settlement if it is just and reasonable to do so.
- s 35(a) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that ‘a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act ... shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object’.
Analysis:
The provision is intended to benefit that class of persons who have suffered personal injury from child abuse by enabling them to bring an action for that injury. That purpose is achieved by removing the limitation period which would otherwise apply, and by giving the right to seek to set aside a previous judgment or settlement which occurred in the context of legal barriers which have since been removed. The remedial character of the legislation supports an interpretation which confines the discretion in s 27QE to not include considerations such as lapse of time and prejudice which are relevant to a barrier to the action which it was intended be removed.
Conclusion:
The plaintiff is not barred from claiming damages for personal injury suffered as a consequence of the abuse by previously entering into a Deed.
