Potter v Trustees of the De La Salle Brothers

1. [1]

   On 20 December 2023, the plaintiff instituted proceedings claiming damages from the Trustees of the De La Salle Brothers with respect to historical sexual abuse whilst he was a student at De La Salle College Revesby.

2. [2]

   On 14 March 2024, the plaintiff filed an Amended Statement of Claim which included adding, as a second defendant, Sydney Catholic Schools Ltd.

3. [3]

   A further minor change occurred with the third version of the Statement of Claim which was filed on 23 February 2024.

4. [4]

   On 24 January 2025, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion by which he sought the following orders:

5. [5]

   In support of that Motion, the plaintiff relied upon two affidavits of his solicitor, Mitchell Hajje. The first affidavit was sworn on 24 January 2025. The second affidavit was sworn on February 2025.

6. [6]

   In the first affidavit, Mr Hajje deposed:

7. [7]

   In his second affidavit, Mr Hajje deposed as follows:

8. [8]

   Annexed to the affidavit is a copy of the Criminal History Report of the plaintiff, current as at 8 March 2023.

9. [9]

   It is apparent from that Report that on 8 July 2013, in the District Court of New South Wales, the plaintiff was sentenced upon a plea of guilty to supplying a prohibited drug in excess of the large commercial quantity. For that offence, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years and 6 months commencing on 31 May 2012 and concluding on 30 November 2022. His non‑parole period was 6 years and 6 months.

10. [10]

    It is to be observed that this sentence expired about 12 months before the current proceedings were commenced.

11. [11]

    The Report also records that on 16 March 2023, the plaintiff was refused bail at the Downing Centre Local Court on a charge of importing a commercial quantity of border-controlled drugs.

12. [12]

    The evidence of Mr Hajje, together with the Report (current as at March 2023), does not prove that the plaintiff was in custody as a result of having been convicted of, or found to have committed, any offence at all. The evidence pellucidly shows that whilst the plaintiff has been charged with an offence, he is on remand awaiting his trial.

13. [13]

    The fact that a plaintiff is on remand in custody is not sufficient, of itself, to require that he have leave to institute proceedings.

14. [14]

    The evidence does not support the matters necessary to found a grant of leave under the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981.

15. [15]

    This judgment demonstrates, yet again, that solicitors acting for plaintiffs need to pay careful attention to the terms of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act including demonstrating, by admissible evidence, that the Court ought grant leave, because the necessary pre-conditions set out in s 4 and s 5 of the Act have been satisfied.

Orders

1. [16]

   I make the following orders:

   1. (1)

      Notice of Motion filed 24 January 2025 dismissed.

   2. (2)

      The plaintiff to pay his own costs of the Notice of Motion.