Soatini v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 931 (Link to Caselaw).
The first claim
In 2022, Moana Soatini (‘the plaintiff’) commenced proceedings against the first defendant seeking damages for psychological harm resulting from sexual abuse that he alleges was inflicted upon him between 1993 and 1995 whilst he was a primary school student. Given the terms of s 6A(1) of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) and the nature of these allegations, no limitation period applied to that claim for damages. In 2023, he filed an amended statement of claim adding the second and third defendants. Following periods of inactivity by the plaintiff and his repeated failure to appear, on 17 December 2024 the proceedings were dismissed with costs pursuant to r 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (‘UCPR’).
The second claim
On 23 October 2025, the plaintiff filed a statement of claim seeking to pursue a claim against the first and second defendants: other than not proceeding against the third defendant, the claim is in identical terms to the earlier one.
The application
The second defendant filed an application for orders that the later proceedings be stayed pending payment of their costs of the earlier proceedings.
The plaintiff advanced two arguments in opposition to the stay.: First, the plaintiff raised various complaints about the costs that were being claimed by the second defendant and possible questions about their recoverability. Secondly, the plaintiff argued he was impecunious and likely to remain so, with the consequence that granting the stay would, in effect, result in a permanent stay of proceedings.
In relation to the first argument, the rule is expressed in terms of whether, as a consequence of the dismissal of proceedings, “a party is liable to pay the costs of another party”. There was no requirement to have those costs assessed for the rule to be engaged.
In relation to the second argument the court held ([42] – [43]):
Whilst I accept that the plaintiff is of limited means, I am not prepared to infer that this position will continue indefinitely. As Mr Black submitted, the plaintiff’s evidence was a “bare snapshot” of his position. I note that the plaintiff’s affidavit does not address what steps he has taken, or is taking, to secure work, nor did it address his employment intentions more generally. It follows, therefore, that none of the matters raised by the plaintiff, or their combination, persuade me that the “normal course” or “general rule” should here be displaced. In my view, there is nothing in the circumstances advanced that justifies the second action proceeding without payment of the second defendant’s outstanding costs, less still “some special circumstances”
The second proceedings were stayed pending payment of the second defendant’s costs.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2565]