DZY (a pseudonym) v Trustees of the Christian Brothers [2025] HCA 16 (Link to JADE).
A joint judgment was written by Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman and Gleeson JJ. A separate judgement was written by Steward J.
Ground 1 – Interpretation point – Upheld
The plurality stated that although the plurality of the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of s 27QE of the Limitation of Actions Act, the evidence would not have allowed the Court to be satisfied that it was just and reasonable to set aside either deed insofar as it released the Trustees from an economic loss claim. ([8]).
The operation of s 27QE is not limited to circumstances where the limitation defence or the Ellis defence materially influenced the claimant’s decision to settle. ([22]). That is not to suggest that the previous legal barriers are irrelevant in determining whether it is just and reasonable to set aside a settlement agreement in whole or in part under s 27QE. One or both of the legal barriers will ordinarily play some part in determining whether it is just and reasonable to set aside a settlement agreement under s 27QE. ([30]).
Ground 2 – The economic loss component of the settlement – Dismissed.
The evaluative judgment undertaken by the Court of Appeal identified, correctly, that the evidence did not allow the Court to be satisfied it was just and reasonable to set aside either deed insofar as it released the Trustees from an economic loss claim. There was no dispute about the relevant factual circumstances and the following circumstances were identified by both parties during the course of argument. ([35]). The evidence suggested that he chose to renounce his economic loss claim because of concerns about a potential “clawback” of Centrelink benefits. ([36]).
Separate Judgment
Steward J said that his reading of the reasons of Beach and Macaulay JJA does not suggest that their Honours had decided that there were any necessary “prerequisites” or “quasi-prerequisites” to the exercise of the power conferred by s 27QE of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic). Hence it seems their was no error in the interpretation of the section by the Court of Appeal below.
He otherwise agreed with the plurality judgment.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2377]