Crowe v Society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart [2026] VSC 275 (Link to AUSTLII).
In an application to set aside a deed regarding an historical sexual abuse claim, the defendant did not oppose setting aside deed insofar as it related to a claim for general damages and/or medical expenses, but opposed setting aside deed insofar as it related to a claim for economic loss.
The plaintiff ultimately established that it was just and reasonable to order that the Deed be set aside in its entirety. for the reasons explained at [166]:
(a) the circumstances of the present case are unlike others in which a deed has been set aside only in respect of a claim for general damages and/or medical expenses, but is left in place in respect of a claim for economic loss;
(b) in particular, it is not a case in which the plaintiff has specifically and for good reason consciously determined not to pursue his economic loss claim for a reason unaffected by Ellis;
(c) indeed, in the present case, the plaintiff wrongly but honestly and not unreasonably believed that the settlement included ‘money’ for economic loss;
(d) more broadly, the plaintiff was mindful of the difficulties and risks posed by the Ellis defence and, in substance, believed that the defendant could ultimately prove to be a ‘ghost’ that left him with nothing;
(e) in the present instance, those concerns were not unreasonably held and bore upon the plaintiff’s acceptance of a settlement at significant undervalue; and
(f) the defendant identified no specific prejudice associated with setting aside the Deed in its entirety, other than the loss of the protection afforded by it.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2526]