Plaintiff Alleges Sexual Abuse Against Former Teacher
Brockhurst v Rawlings [2021] QSC 217 (27 August 2021)
The plaintiff, who was a student of the defendant, alleges that the latter sexually abused him. The plaintiff claims damages from the defendant for personal injury, in trespass, by battery. The defendant asserts that the damages sought should be reduced because the plaintiff was displaying oppositional defiant disorder before the alleged sexual abuse occurred. The Court adjudicated this dispute by considering and citing relevant jurisprudence.
Facts:
Meredith Rawlings, a teacher, seduced her student, Nicholas Brockhurst. Her relationship with him began when he was 13 years old, in his first year of high school. He became infatuated with her. They had sexual intercourse when he was 14. Mr Brockhurst’s parents found notes from Mrs Rawlings to their son and raised concerns about her with the school.
Mrs Rawlings tendered her resignation and ended their relationship. Mr Brockhurst now claims damages from her for personal injury, in trespass, by battery. While the plaintiff alleged that his relationship with the defendant was romantic, intimate, and sexual, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff’s evidence was a fantasy that he convinced himself was true. The plaintiff sought $50,000 in exemplary damages, $50,000 for aggravated damages,
The matter proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff was displaying behaviours consistent with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) before he was groomed and seduced by the defendant.
The defendant's counsel submitted that because of the other conditions suffered by the plaintiff, the award of general damages ought to be reduced to take into account those matters.
Issues:
I. Whether or not the nature of the relationship between Mrs Rawlings and Mr Brockhurst constitutes sexual abuse.
II. Whether or not exemplary and aggravated damages should be awarded.
Applicable law:
B v Reineker [2015] NSWSC 949 - where the plaintiff in Reineker was sexually abused on countless occasions, over seven or so years, by a “church” family friend who became her teacher and swimming coach. She was awarded $350,000 in general damages, which included aggravated damages.
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 - by “satisfied, on the balance of probabilities” what is meant is actually persuaded, by carefully scrutinised evidence, to a degree which recognised the seriousness of the allegations made by the plaintiff and their consequences.
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 - provided that a failure to amend particulars to correspond exactly with the facts alleged in evidence does not preclude a court’s reliance on those facts, particularly when they fall within the pleaded case.
Katsilis v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1977) 18 ALR 181 - where it was held that the only question for the Court was whether the plaintiff proved enough to entitle him to succeed in an action for battery against the defendant.
Longman v The Queen [1989] HCA 60; (1989) 168 CLR 79 - where the defendant submitted that it would be dangerous for the Court to find in favour of the uncorroborated plaintiff, and I could not be satisfied of the truth of his evidence after scrutinising it with great care as required because of the delay.
Mark Bain Constructions Pty Ltd v Avis; Mark Bain Constructions Pty Ltd v Barnscape Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 100 - provides for the means to estimate the costs proportion of the settlement sum.
Mount Arthur Coal Pty Ltd v Duffin [2021] NSWCA 49 - where an issue on appeal was whether the primary judge made appropriate deductions to the award of damages because of Ms Duffin’s “pre-existing injuries”.
P v R [2010] QSC 139 - provides that the defendant’s sexual abuse of him as a vulnerable child called for an award of punitive damages.
WAQ v Di Pino [2012] QCA 283 - where it was provided that the “if but only if” test applied to the award of exemplary damages.
Analysis:
The tort of battery is committed when one person intentionally makes contact with another in a harmful or offensive way. Personal, intimate or sexual contact, without voluntary consent, is offensive contact. At 13 or 14 years of age, Mr Brockhurst was unable to voluntarily consent to Mrs Rawlings’ intimate and sexual contact with him. Thus, her intimate and sexual contact with him amounted to a series of batteries (“sexual abuse”).
The defendant abused her position of trust over the plaintiff, who was particularly vulnerable as a 13-year-old boarder, living away from home. He was accused of lies and fantasy and it was suggested that he suffered from an undisclosed mental illness which accounted for his symptoms. Such allegations caused him mental deterioration.
Mrs Rawlings’ sexual abuse of Mr Brockhurst caused him personal injury, including a depressive disorder. The defendant’s utterly selfish conduct included her sexual pursuit of the plaintiff, even after she had been warned to keep away from him. Her conduct took from him the opportunity to develop, in his own time, as a mature, sexual adult. He has suffered economic and non-economic loss because of her abuse of him.
The plaintiff was displaying behaviours consistent with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) before he was groomed and seduced by the defendant. However, there is no evidence to support the proposition that the plaintiff’s oppositional defiance disorder, rather than effects of sexual abuse could not be the cause of the plaintiff’s ongoing issues.
Conclusion:
Damages are awarded to Mr Brockwurst in the amount of $1,456,524.15. As to the costs of the proceedings, the parties will be heard. It appropriate to make an additional award of $15,000 in exemplary damages to convey the Court’s denunciation of the defendant’s abusive conduct and to ensure that the plaintiff is adequately compensated. The Court considered this an appropriate case for an award of aggravated damages, compensatory in nature, in the amount of $35,000, with interest at 2 per cent for half of the award for 25 years: $43,750.00.
