Abuse: Family setting.

Mayberry v Mayberry [2026] NSWDC 238 (Link to JADE).

The plaintiff alleged sexual abuse on the part of the defendant (his uncle) when the plaintiff was aged 11-15 years. The defendant denied the abuse. The trial judge reviewed the evidence and ultimately found in favour of the plaintiff at [298]:

Having regard to all of the evidence and for all of those reasons, I accept the plaintiff’s evidence of what happened. I have reached a state of actual persuasion and find on the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the gravity of the allegations, that the acts of sexual abuse the plaintiff described in his oral evidence to the court actually happened. I do not accept the defendant’s evidence that they did not happen.

Damages were assessed as follows:

In relation to the exemplary damages assessment the court held at [361], discounting the concept of an extra curial punishment:

I accept the plaintiff’s submission that the defendant’s conduct was deliberate, repeated, and manipulative, perpetrated by an adult in a position of familial trust upon an adolescent, accompanied by the imposition of secrecy, and has had lifelong sequelae. Those matters provide reason for ensuring that there is an element of moral retribution and denunciation in the court’s orders. All the more so when the defendant took advantage of a vulnerable young man for his own sexual gratification. Whilst arguing against an award for aggravated damages, the defendant appeared to accept that an award for exemplary damages to mark the disapproval of his conduct is appropriate. I do not accept the defendant’s submission that he has suffered “extra-curial punishments”. I acknowledge that he may have suffered some personal embarrassment as a result of the letterbox drop, however in my view that does not warrant modifying the amount of any award.

[BillMaddensWordpress #2554]