JVU25 v Operator, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse [2026] FCA 145. (Link to JADE).
This matter may do no more than foreshadow an issue which may return to the Court at a later date.
The applicant claimed that he was the victim of historical physical and sexual abuse while he was in a South Australian institution. The applicant said that in 2019 he applied for redress under the Redress Scheme, and that he subsequently received a sum of money to acknowledge the wrongs he experienced as a child. However, the applicant claimed that when he accepted the respondent’s offer to pay him that money, he did not understand that he thereby released and discharged the State of South Australia from civil liability.
Although the applicant had not articulated the basis on which he asserts that the respondent owed him a relevant duty of care, he claims that by reason of the respondent’s negligence, he suffered damage as he lost the opportunity to make a damages claim against the State of South Australia in respect of the abuse that he suffered as a child.
The published reasons at this stage related only to an order that the solicitor for the applicant pay the costs of a case management hearing. The substantive claim appears to remain unresolved.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2510]