On this page:
♦ The process of making my compensation claim - Mark Prytz
♦ Who is responsible? - Vicarious Liability
♦ Making a Claim - What to expect
♦ GUIDING PRINCIPLES Child Sexual Abuse Civil Claims
♦ Model Litigant Guidelines
♦ New 2021 - Catholic Church National Response Protocol


Saturday October 14, 2023
I now think the only way to do claim properly is to do it twice.
What you learn in yout first attempt means you can avoid the pitfalls in your second try.

My solicitors and barrister got things wrong and often failed to understand what was presented to them.
You have to read everything yourself very carefully and even look up the law yourself because you can't trust them to get it right.

I have found that because their job is to expedite the settlement they will pretty much just accept any offer the defendant makes and not fight for more money or less onerous conditions.

They wilt in front of the hardball playing defendant.
The defendant always wins, they hold the power of the money, and they get so used to winning nothing ever gets better or more fair for the plaintiff.

A win for the Society of Jesus is where, for example, they pay $600K compensation and $200K of the plaintiffs costs
They themselves spend $200K or more on legal fees.
That totals about $1 million.
Comparing that to a plaintiff's loss of income ($2.4 million) plus pain and suffering compensation ($500K), they come out well in front.
Not that a court or jury is likely to award the full amount of the plaintiff's claim , but its still a good result for them.

So, the question is why, if they had a heart and a soul, would they not simply pay the plaintiff $1 million at the beginning instead of putting him through two or three years of stress, worry, anxiety and re-abuse?


An ABC News online article sounds exactly the same as my experience with the Society of Jesus.

How the Victorian Education Department's historical child sexual abuse scandal was hidden for decades

In cases where an alleged abuser is dead or was never convicted of a crime, lawyers need to prove the abuse on the balance of probabilities,
gathering statements from witnesses, the complainant and their family and friends.

Maurice Blackburn's John Rule describes the legal process as a "war of attrition" in which the government,
via external legal counsel, routinely refuses to admit liability,
making litigation a "long, drawn-out, hard-fought, nasty, traumatising thing" for survivors.

"And it is always that way against them," Mr Rule says.

"At the start of the case, we file our statement of claim, where we say everything that happened and explain
why we're going to win, and the law that applies. They have to file a defence where they either make certain admissions or deny it.

"And they will not admit that the abuse happened, almost across the board, unless there is a criminal conviction,
in which case they'll partially admit it. They'll deny liability, even when there are a dozen cases related to the perpetrator.

"They'll maintain that for 18 months of litigation, until a week before trial.
Then they'll write to us and formally admit liability, because they don't want to go in front of a judge and argue that case,
because they know they'll get yelled at by the judge and get a cost award against them for wasting everybody's time."
♦ more... www.abc.net.au

Saturday August 19, 2023
In a pefect world populated by catholic priests of the highest moral calibre on would expect that if you made a report or complaint against a priest which they were not sure was true, they would say we will do everything we can to help you prove your allegation.
Simply because they genuinely care about the survivors and are committed to the truth.

Evidence, of course, is vital in any complaint or trial.

Marilyn warren said in her Victor Higgs report (20 December 2019) :

(Warren had the power to compel a full search and know that they did it, something a plaintiff does not have.)



In a civil suit the rules of discovery say they should do the same and provide anything found to the plaintiff.
But, and this is normal, it is not known what and where the defendant (the Society of Jesus) actually searched.

You have to take their word for it, which is a sick joke.


Then some witnesses become unavailable.

I spoke in person to Fr. Purcell about 18 months earlier and he seemed very lucid with a good memory.

This makes me somewhat fearful of the alleged offender, Fr. Peter Beer's mental health.

Warren was also able to ask for and be provded with contact details for people she wanted to talk to.


Xavier College and the Society of Jesus will not provide contact details for former teachers, Paul Henderson and Gaham Sharp, who I beleve are worth talking to and there is no way to compel them to do it.

These parts of what a former Supreme Court Chief Justice considers to be important for a proper investigation of a complaint are being denied to survivors.
The plaintiff is an enemy that must be defeated.

June 30, 2023
There is a strange irony at work.
The men of god in their defence to any claim say its not true you are either lying or deluded.
This coming from priests who tell me they can turn bread and wine into the body and blood of a man who died over 2000 years ago.

Applying the same principle to them I insist that they prove to me that they can do that and are not lying or deluded.

Monday August 14, 2023
Its a waiting game now.
Both sides have stated their positions and its been all quiet on the litigation front for about 4 weeks.
More commonly known as brinkmanship.
With the trial looming in 20 days each side is wondering what the other might do as the big day approaches.

In preparation I should get my suit dry cleaned and buy a new white shirt, I was even thinking of buying a new pair of shoes.

May 17, 2023
"Hostile" Witness List
Looking ahead to the trial in September, if I was my own barrister I would subpoena the following persons to testify under oath.
Quite a list because we are seeking evidence not only about the sexual assault but also about matters that relate to exemplary damages.

A note on calculating economic loss
The supreme court rules in Victoria are different to all other states.
This causes confusion among even those who should know.
In NSW for example the court calculates interest on the initial value of the loss.
viz. A loss of $10 in 1980 has interest added to bring it up to near today's dollar value. (Reserve Bank overnight cash rate in that year plus 4%)
And so on for all the years of loss claimed.
Forensic accountants provide the estimated loss amount to your lawyers in the dollar value of the year of the loss.
For a Victorian claimant this is very misleading.

For Victoria you would think that your economic loss claim should be in the dollar value at the time of claim lodgement.
This can be done using CPI figures or similar method, it is still unclear what is the most accepted method.
It makes a big difference, if your old money total is say $1 million, when adjusted it is likely to be nearer $2 million over 40-50 years of income loss.

What the court expects or accepts is unclear, we are seeking advice on this.

In Victoria the supreme court also adds 10% interest on any awarded loss of income and loss of superannuation for the period from the date of claim lodgement to the date of trial resolution.
This is compensation for you not having that money for that period of time, it has nothing to do with the historical loss.


This Victorian anomaly seems to fly in the face of the Compensatory Principle.

The Compensatory Principle is accepted by all courts as the basis of a personal injury compensation claim.
"Regardless of the type of harm or the tort, the general principle in tort law is that the role of compensatory damages is to place a
plaintiff, so far as money can do, in the position he or she would have been in had the tort not been committed."

In Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64 at 116 by Deane J sets out the rule for assessment of damages as follows:
“The general principle governing the assessment of compensatory damages in both contract and tort is that the plaintiff 
should receive the monetary sum which, so far as money can, represents fair and adequate compensation for the loss or injury sustained by reason of the defendant’s wrongful conduct.”





April 07, 2023
I don't know if you have ever been on a small boat in the open sea.
Before you leave you are standing on solid ground and very stable.
The boat leaves and rocks up and down a little its actually quite pleasant.
Then you get further and further and further from land and the swells increase and the boat is riding up and over and down the swells.
These enormous swells that come at you like mountains.
You are trying to hold your balance but you get disorientated.
The boat might be side on to the swell and feeling like it will tip over.
The wind is blowing this way and the swells are going the other the boat goes up and down and slings itself across the crest.

Many different forces at play, all of them affecting your stability.
This is the lot of the complainant in a mediation for compensation.

The captain of the boat (my lawyers) says theres a safe harbour over there behind that island do you want to go there?
But my mission was to reach a port further down the coast where my true love lives.
The captain explains I don't think we will get there , the swells and the wind (the defendants and legal precedents) are too overpowering.
If we take safe harbour here we will all suvive he explains if we don't we all might drown.
But, I say to captain, I have to get to the port to meet my true love.
There is no guarantee we will get there he explains and says there are some quite nice girls here on the island you might be satisfied with.

Do you really want to risk everything for your true love he asks.

My mediation with the Society of Jesus was yesterday.
What happens in a mediation is completely confidential and cannot be reported.
The two sides were equally represented, Simon Davies was with a lawyer from Tony Hargreaves and Partners and a barrister.
With me was my solicitor and a barrister.
We started at 10am and were finished by 1:30pm, there was no agreement made.

Now there will be a court Directions Hearing which is nothing much, the parties report their failure to agree and the judge might say something.
There is now four months until the September Supreme Court trial date, which be in front of a jury.
Lawyers on both sides have to do trial preparation.
So we are going to trial unless the Society of Jesus makes an offer we accept in the meantime.
Our side will look at what their defences will be and be prepared to counter argue them.

1. Will they try the permanent stay application to the court?

2. Will they go hard on my memory and recall? (Yes).
Holding their position that the assault never happend.
Because my memory of the assault was suppressed for many years it gives them the opportunity to argue that "recalled memories" are unreliable and probably untrue.
This is still a contentious issue and has been since the "memory wars" in the 1990's.

3. Will they argue against our economic loss assessment? (Yes.)

4. If a jury were to believe the assault happened the defense has no real way to successfully deny vicariuos liability or failure of duty of care.

Our side also has to gather more evidence.

Paul Henderson and Graham Sharp have probably been warned they are persons of interest.
At trial we can subpoena them if we don't get a statement earlier.

There are glaring omissions in the Jesuit supplied discovery documents, so we have to get them.

We have to subpoena the police investigation notes.

I also think we must get access to the Jesuit archives and do a proper search.

My lawyers explained to me the "risk" factors, that is where we might fail, our legal weaknesses and their legal arguments that might or might not be accepted by the jury.
That's their job to warn you of a possible negative outcome.

So, you get close to the trial date or even if the trial has begun, and there is an offer from the Jesuits probably about 30% of what you are claiming, the survivor is faced with this dilemma, do I accept the offer or risk losing everything?
The Jesuits know this and this is their usual exercise of power and fear to bring the survivor to his knees.
It a tough decision, especially if the survivor has no money and has family to care for.

If you lose your case at trial then you likely to have to pay the defendant's legal costs, maybe $300-400,000.
Your lawyers won't be happy of course because of the no win no fee agreement (that doesn't include disbursements which you have to pay).

A compounding factor is in your agreement with your lawyers, if you receive an offer to settle and your lawyers say you should accept it because its reasonable, the best we could do etc.
And if you don't accept it and lose at trial then you are liable for all your own lawyers costs, another $300-400,000.

Another compounding factor is the "Briginshaw" principle, where if the court awards you less than any offer the defense made to you previously, then you are liable for the defendant's costs.

Easy isn't it?
This power play by the Jesuits and others usually works and the complainant will fold and accept the offer.
The defendants are happy about this for two reasons, they pay out a lot less than claimed and they keep the general level of compensation amounts down.

Doomsday Scenario

Because you are pig-headed, aggrieved, reliving the abuse of power you suffered many years ago and saying to yourself "I'm not going to let them do it to me again".

Against all the expensive advice you received you go to trial and lose.
The backup plan is the caravan. Sell your house to pay debts and go bankrupt.
As a bankrupt you are allowed to keep certain basic items like a car and I hope a humble caravan.
The beauty of this is that you are mobile and can travel and park outside 130 Power St. Hawthorn or outside Canisius House in Sydney.
Just run an extension lead from the property to your van and you have free power too.

† March 17, 2023
It is finally set, first mediation will be on April 6, 2023. This Game of Lawyers is so disgusting but this is how the law works.
It is so adversarial, I am told we are in one room, they are in another room and the mediator is in another.
There is an opportunity for our side to meet face to face with them at the begining if we choose to.

We are asking for my real calculated economic loss and other general damages, they are trying to pay out as little as possible.
The end game on all the lawyers minds is how strong is the plaintiff's case and how might it go if it went to trial.
I don't expect the mediation to be more than an opening gambit.
Should the proceeding not resolve at mediation, the parties are to attend a post-mediation directions hearing.
Then the negotiation process continues as the September supreme court trial date approaches.
Going on precedents the Society of Jesus will take it all the way up to the trial date before making an offer they hope will be accepted.
I say this because the Society of Jesus has never actually taken a case into court.

Also my/our costs go up because now my lawyers have to prepare for a trial.


In a good and wonderful world none of this would happen and it wouldn't take three years.
Imagine an honest and contrite Society of Jesus willing to make reparation to victims as calculated by independant experts.
They would be presented with the report and they would pay the calculated amount because that is what it is.
But what they are doing is stealing $10 from you and offering $2 to settle your complaint.

This might sound weird but I put it all down to the failure of their own esteemed Ignatian Spirituality.
If the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises really worked these priests would be men of god and have experience of Divine Love.
In my estimation a man or priest with those qualities would not and could not do what they do to victims/survivors.


† March 2023
On January 17th I went to see Dr. Dickhead (I won't name him here he might sue me), the psychiatrist chosen by the Society of Jesus to get another opinion of my good self regarding mental state, injury etc etc.
This poor fellow seemed totally disinterested in his work, seemed not to have read any of the documentation supplied to him, lost interest half way through the 90 minutes of our talk and got up said goodbye without looking at me and turned away to play with his phone leaving me to show myself out the door.
Manners! my good man... didn't your mum teach you anything?
Haven't received his report yet.

Finally we might be getting a fixed date for the first mediation, it looks like early April.
Silly me thought it would be all us sitting around a table having a good ol' chinwag.
Nope... we are in one room, they are in another room and mediator in another room.
The mediator runs back and forth with little notes.
This can take the whole day apparently to not get an agreement.
There is an opportunity, if we want it, to have an introductory meet with them face to face before retiring to our bunkers.

Reminds me of two bunches of kids having a stand off in the back paddock with someone's mum in the middle trying to sort it out. Very childish.


† November 2022
My lawyers sent me my Medicare history going back many years.
You have to go through it all and tick any consultation that was because of the effects of abuse.
The reason for this is that you are claiming for past medical expenses and they can calculate what it is.

After the psychiatrist interview cancellation the defence lawyers tried to find another appointment.
These forensic psychiatrists can be booked up for a year ahead.
They found one with a free date in January and informed my lawyers.
Probelm is they didn't realize it was the same psychiatrist who had already interviewed me on behalf of my lawyers.
So, back to the drawing board.

Discovery
Our side has received the defence's discovery list and actual documents.
A lot of it is already known to us, things like school staff lists, my own name appearing in the Xaverian annual, biographies of relevant persons etc. etc.
It is confidential so details can't be revealed.
Some of it is a surprise and raises some real questions about what has been going on in the last few years.
That's all I can say!!..


† Friday October 28, 2022
The scheduled interview with the Jesuit's chosen psychiatrist has been postponed.
This is because the psychiiatrist has not received the backgroung documents she needs.
Hargreaves lawyers are blaming my lawyers, its a mess, not sure who is at fault, maybe both.
Re-scheduling the appointment will mean the mediation for December 4, 2022 will have to be put back later as well.



† September 18, 2022
A few months ago my lawyers lodged our Statement of Claim with the Supreme Court of Victoria, naming two alleged offenders at Xavier College.
The Jesuit's lawyers (Tony Hargreaves and Partners) submitted their defence, which was interesting in that it read like it was 1999.

All the old defences were stated, except for the Ellis defence of not existing,
the allleged offenders were not employees of Xavier College, there is no vicarious liability.
In recent years these defences have largely been not accepted by the courts.

"(a) Father "A" and Father "B" were not employed by the Defendant at the relevant times;
(b) At the relevant times, Father "A" and Father "B" were priests in the society of Jesus and fulfilling their priestly duties when working at Xavier;
(c) Even if Father "A" and Father "B" were employees of the Defendant (which is denied), it would not be vicariously liable for their alleged conduct (which conduct is not admitted)."

"36.In response to paragraph 36 it:
(a) denies any breach of duty;
(b) denies that it is vicariously liable in respect of the intentional acts which are alleged (and which acts are not admitted);
(c) says that the Plaintiff has suffered other injuries, including to his back/neck, and heart problems, which are relevant to his claimed impairment;
(d) otherwise does not admit the allegations in paragraph 36."

(c) is the one where they try to blame other things for the claimed impairment.

37.It says further that the Defendant is entitled to a permanent stay of the proceeding on the basis that the proceeding is an abuse of process, as the proceeding is manifestly unfair to the Defendant in view of the delay of approximately 50 years since the alleged acts of abuse."
And why not ask the court to throw the thing out.

Its the law, its a game they play, but it still makes me feel disgusted with the Society of Jesus, these men of god, "men for others" saying they don't believe a word of our claim and will fight it to the bitter end.
They are saying to me "you are lying".
Everything the Society of Jesus and Xavier College have ever said about believing survivors and the apologies and that they care rings so hollow when you read this defense.

You don't have to play the game this way.
They will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the lawyers.
All in the name of protecting their reputation and limiting the compensation they might have to pay.


Then there was a Directions Hearing where the court lays out the next steps each side has to go through.
This contains a lot of things like:
• The proceeding is fixed for trial not before July 2023 before a judge and jury on an estimate by the parties that the trial will occupy 5 sitting days.

• The defendant is to file and serve a defence by 19 May 2022.

• The parties are to make any request for further and better particulars by 14 July 2022

• The parties are to file and serve any further particulars required within 28 days of receipt of the request for further and better particulars.

• On or before 11 August 2022, the plaintiff is to serve particulars of special damages, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, along with supporting documentation

• All parties are to make discovery (including full inspection) in accordance with the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (‘the Rules’) and file and serve an affidavit of documents by 29 September 2022.

• The parties are to exchange any medical and/or expert reports concerning damages and liability, including those required to be served under ord 33 or ord 44 of the Rules, by 29 September 2022.

• The parties are to have attended a mediation of the proceeding by 5 December 2022.

• Should the proceeding not resolve at mediation, the parties are to attend a post-mediation directions hearing on 16 December 2022.

• At least two days prior to the post-mediation directions hearing, the parties are to file a provisional list of witnesses.

• At the post-mediation directions hearing, the parties are to advise the Court:
(a) whether the Court-ordered timetable has been complied with;
(b) what issues remain in dispute;
(c) whether it is proposed to seek leave to amend any pleading or join further parties;
(d) whether the initial estimate of the length of the trial requires adjustment.


Economic Loss
A forensic accountant goes over your working life and does an estimate of loss of earnings.
This is not as simple as it might sound.

The first hiccup is that for most survivors the abuse happened before their working age.
My lawyers instructed the accountant to provide three loss scenarios for three different occupations I had or might have had (architect, teacher, phoptographer) based on what happened AFTER the abuse.
This is not a criticism of the lawyers, its the way it works and what the court will accept.

But you would have to say that it has to be flawed because you are basing the loss on what the plaintiff
achieved or might have achived when the damage was done.
The "coulda been champion" scenario is not considered.
i.e. basing a careeer trajectory on exam results and other achievements at school before the damage was done.
They say that this is just too hypothetical.

The second hiccup in my history is the lack of tax returns,
over a 45 year approx. working life I have only ever done about 10 tax returns.
Income details from long ago are lost in time.

I tried to remember my working history for all those years and did a best estimate on what I may have earned.

The third hiccup was the method the accountant used to fill in the blank years where there was no tax return information.
His method was to take the earnings amount from the next nearest year where there was tax return information.
This led to some big distortions in my case because for one year in 1989 I was employed on a good salary ($100,000 in today's money).
But in the years before and after I was struggling as a freelance photographer.
But the accountant put in that high earnings figure in all those blank years.

As is stands now I am trying to get the report revised and have some calculations explained.
The lesson is look closely at things like this because your lawyers would accept the report without questioning it.

********** insert March 20, 2023. ****************
The economic loss figures the forensic accountant calculated looked wrong, this was eventually explained that the figure was for the relevant year in that year's value.
This is because your lawyers ask for economic loss plus interest.
So interest has to be calculated for each year individually up to the date of the court hearing.
I found a calculator that does this.
♦ lawyers.dolmanbateman.com.au
Its worth noting that the basis for the calculation of pre-judgment interest changed whereby interest is calculated by reference to the Reserve Bank of Australia Cash Rate plus 4%.

It is also worth noting some legal opinions on The compensatory principle.
Compensatory damages
The overall objective and fundamental principle of compensation means that the damages to be recovered are in money terms no more and no less than the plaintiff’s actual loss: Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co.
(Hammond, Tim --- "Damages for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse" [2019] PrecedentAULA 25; (2019) 151 Precedent 44)

AMACA PTY LTD v LATZ [2017] SASCFC 145 (30 October 2017)
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASCFC/2017/145.html
The compensatory principle
The compensatory principle is that damages are to be awarded so as to place the plaintiff as far as possible in the same position as if the defendant had not committed the actionable wrong.

The compensatory principle was formulated by Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co[44] in the following terms: I do not think there is any difference of opinion as to its being a general rule that, where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for reparation of damages you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation
*************** end insert ************************

A glaring omission from an economic loss assessment is, in my mind, ignoring assets and their increasing value over time.
The average person's main investment and asset is their land and house.
This doubles in value every 10-15 years on average.
For example in 2005 I considered buying a certain house for $325,000. ($455,000 in 2020 money. I had received some money as an inheritance).
I was unemployed and it was a bit too much to pay.
That median value of houses in that town is now $1,800,000.
Have I missed out on an asset value increase of $1,300,000 approx.?

Most people who can afford it do buy a house to live in.
Possibly also they would invest in equities.


Discovery
Under the Court rules, each party to an action is under an obligation to ‘discover’ documents
which are or have been in the party’s possession or power relating to any matter in question in the action.
The documents are ‘discovered’ by delivering an Affidavit of Documents listing them and then the other party
can request copies of the documents listed in the Affidavit. The disclosure of documents must be full and frank
(it can affect the success of this case).

We are required to discover any of the following documents:
a. documents on which the party relies;
b. documents that adversely affect the party's own case;
c. documents that adversely affect another party's case;
d. documents that support another party's case.

So I went through all my folders full of stuff and sent the lawyers anything that might be relevant and let them sort it out.

Second Medico/Legal Report
The defendant, The Society of Jesus in Australia Ltd. (Xavier College), has requested a Medico/Legal Report
from a psychiatrist they have chosen.
This is set for late October.
It is not the unpopular (with survivors) Dr. Entwhistle, who is often used for this.

The point of this is to get a different, less "favourable" report the defendant can use to argue for lower compensation.

Going off topic a bit and considering other factors that the court does not consider.
Compensation claims come under The Wrongs Act is the principal statute governing claims for damages for economic and non-economic loss arising from personal injury and death in Victoria, as a result of negligence or fault.
The Wrongs Act applies to cases involving claims for compensation such slips or falls in public places,
and harm as a result of medical treatment. Where negligence is established damages can be awarded in the form of monetary compensation for the injuries sustained.
The Wrongs Act imposes several limits on access to compensation for economic and non-economic loss arising from personal injury and death in Victoria.

Economic loss:
The maximum amount of damages that may be awarded for each week of lost earnings is three (3) times the average weekly earnings as at the date damages are awarded.

Non-economic loss:
The maximum amount of damages that can be awarded for non-economic loss (pain and suffering) is capped to a statutory amount indexed on 1 July each year. For the financial year 2021-2022, the maximum amount is $644,640.

Exceptions:
Some types of claims are excluded from the operation of the caps and thresholds including claims where the fault concerned is, or relates to, an intentional act done with intent to cause death or injury, or that is sexual assault or other sexual misconduct
♦ www.vgso.vic.gov.au

Sexual assault is excepted from the $644,640 limit.
But in practice courts only ever award between half and two thirds of that amount in serious cases.
A lifetime of pain and suffering is worth about $350,000.
Whereas a high profile person who has been defamed and suffered reputational damage can get $1,000,000.


† December 29, 2021
The psych report was finally received in October.
It gave support to a claim of harm and subsequent psychlogical problems.
The next step is to get an income loss assessment by an accountancy firm.


† June 26, 2022


In this article about a record $5.3 million award it says:
"No survivor of child sex abuse should ever be subjected to victim-blaming, gaslighting, harassment, misuse of defamation laws, surveillance by private detectives intended to intimidate, and arguments that children can consent to sexual abuse."
♦ www.abc.net.au
I think that had a lot to do with the very high amount awarded.

On a personal note I know how he feels (somewhat at least).
Things like the police being called to remove me from the footpath outside Xavier College,
two defamation threats (not directly from the Society of Jesus),
being blamed for ex-Jesuit Philip Walbridge taking his own life and subsequent threats of financial ruin.
Being accused of "abusing people on retreat" by Provincial Brian McCoy SJ.
Being "massaged" by Xavier Principal William Doherty to keep me in line.
Being officially declared a persona non grata by current Provincial Quyen Vu SJ.


This has all happened because among the Xavier College survivors I am the only one doing what you call "activism".
This really is just trying to make public the shocking history of child sex abuse and the ongoing cover up.

† July 4, 2021
Things move very very slowly.
Still haven't got the psychiatrist's report from the January 4, 2021 interview.
The lawyers wanted names of some people who could write a profile about me from what they know.
They were not easy to find, since i have very few long term friends.

I have been advised to be careful what I say on this website and to be careful about what I do as activism.
The reason is that anything might be used by the Jesuit lawyers as ammunition against me.
We are now playing the lawyer game.

† March 10, 2021
The first thing to do is document your life from the day you were born.
I made a chronological list of everything relevant, work history, where I was living, medical history, relationships and other pertinent things.
This took quite a while and meant finding old diaries etc, I had forgotten so much, especially the sequence of events.
I still have a year here and there where I can't recall anything.

Include details of your close family as well.
Names, education level, occupation, marital status, children.
† So, in April 2020 I signed on with a law firm to pursue a claim for compensation from the Society of Jesus.
I want to document this process, as far as I can, publicly,
so others can be aware of the process and what it entails.

These 11 months involved the lawyers collecting information,
some avaialbe by privacy law other by freedom of information requests,
(you sign an authority for the lawyers to ask for private information about you).
Then you are interviewed by a forensic psychiatrist who provides a report about you.
Because of Covid mine was a Zoom meeting which I found unsatisfactory and almost brutal.

(Corrs Chambers Westgarth are the Arcdiocese lawyers. Old Xaverian Jack Rush KC ran the case for them in court.)

The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne has been ordered to pay $1.9 million in damages to an altar boy who was sexually abused by one of its priests.
The altar boy was sexually abused three times by Catholic priest Desmond Gannon between 1968 and 1970.

Gannon was convicted and jailed for the abuse in 2009.
But the victim later lodged civil action against current Melbourne Archbishop Peter Comonsoli, claiming damages for injuries he suffered as a result of the abuse.

He alleged there was negligence by the Archdiocese and that it was vicariously liable for the abuse.

On Thursday Supreme Court judge Andrew Keogh agreed with the plaintiff, ordering the church to pay the $1.9 million for pain and suffering and economic loss.
In his judgement, Justice Keogh said the abuse was horrific and he accepted the victim's evidence that it immediately disrupted his education and relationships with friends and family.

In court, the church had argued the Archdiocese should not be liable for Gannon's actions because it was an "amorphous, undefined thing to which liability could not attach".
However, Justice Keogh rejected that submission.

"The Archdiocese is to be treated as if it were incorporated at the relevant time," the judge said.
"The Archdiocese had a structure imposed by Canon Law. The Archbishop was the pastor of the Archdiocese, and had the power to govern the Archdiocese."

Meanwhile, the victim's lawyer, Michael Magazanik, said the outcome was a landmark judgement.
"This is the first time a survivor has dragged the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne into court, taken them all the way to the end and got a verdict," Mr Magazanik said.

He said the 150-page judgement made by Justice Keogh would set precedents for similar cases.
"That decision on negligence ⁠— that the Church's structure and processes, and lack of policies was negligent ⁠— makes it much easier for survivors to sue," Mr Magazanik said.

"My client is absolutely delighted about the decision, both because he's held the church to account and because it opens the door and makes it much easier for hundreds of other survivors of clerical abuse."
The church received 25 child sexual abuse claims against Gannon and has paid compensation to 22 people under its Melbourne Response scheme.

The Child Abuse Royal Commission heard they received an average of about $33,000 each.
♦ www.abc.net.au


The judge also accepted the economic loss the victim had suffered, as calculated by a forensic accountant.
And the judge actually increased the amount of damages for "pain and suffering" above what was asked for by the plaintiff.
The archdiocese did not object to a previous deed of release being set aside.
Payments from the Melbourne Response were considered ex-gratia payments and not monies to settle a complaint.


November 15, 2022
Exclusive: Advocates say it is disappointing church is spending funds trying to block compensation bids ‘rather than redirecting money to deserving survivors’

The Catholic church has adopted an increasingly aggressive approach to alleged victims of now-dead paedophile priests, using recent rulings to pressure survivors to accept “paltry amounts” or risk having their claims permanently blocked , lawyers say.

In June, the New South Wales courts permanently stayed a civil claim brought by a survivor, known as GLJ, who alleged horrific abuse at the hands of Father Clarence Anderson in Lismore in 1968 when she was 14.

The court ruled there could not be a fair trial because Anderson was dead, leaving the church unable to properly respond to the survivor’s allegations.

The case was stayed despite documentary evidence that high-ranking church officials knew Anderson was abusing boys at least four years before GLJ’s alleged assault, but did not remove him from the clergy, instead shuffling him through parishes where he continued to abuse children.

At the time, law firms that regularly handle child sexual abuse cases predicted the nature of the NSW ruling would “encourage” and “embolden” the church and other institutions to seek permanent stays in the many cases where paedophile clergy had died, even “where evidence indicates a propensity for child abuse”.

In the months since, law firms who spoke to the Guardian said they had noticed a change in approach from the church in such cases.

Arnold Thomas & Becker, which is pursuing claims on behalf of more than 700 abuse victims, said defendants – particularly the church – were now frequently threatening to seek stays in such cases .

Shine Lawyers special counsel Thomas Wallace‑Pannell said his firm had seen a significant uptick in stay applications being made or threatened.

“Institutions are taking a much more aggressive posture,” he said.

“There is no doubt that stay applications are being used to place significant pressure on survivors to accept paltry amounts or to walk away altogether.
♦ www.theguardian.com

A survivor of sexual assault by   ♦ Richard Donal Lane SJ     at St. Aloysius College, Sydney reports that the current Principal Mark Tannock heard of the complaint and met with the survivor and referred the survivor to Simon Davies, the Society of Jesus' Director of Culture, Risk and Professional Standards.

Mr. Davies said he believed the survivors story and that they had a file on Richard Donal Lane SJ's criminal behaviour.
The survivor engaged a lawyer to seek compensation and an apology, then Mr. Davies briefed Peter Brown lawyer (Tony Hargreaves and Partners Lawyers)
With Mr. Davies agreement Mr. Brown denied that any abuse had occurred and the lawyers began the shameful bargaining about how much money.

The survivor was offered a compensation amount that was 7.5% of what his lawyer had calculated as the survivors's loss and damages.

The survivor says "they basically bullied me and offered some shut up money with no apology. "
He rejected that offer and is pursuing a civil suit.




Two current civil compensation claims before the Supreme Court, Victoria, name Patrick Stephenson SJ, Eldon Hogan and Peter Beer SJ as a sex abusers.
The Society of Jesus lawyer, Peter Brown of Hargreaves Partners lawyers, is playing very hard ball with these claims.
See the "Survivor Led Response" story for how a claim was handled in the past       ♦ Survivor Led Response

The Society of Jesus always always fights hard to try to protect Stephenson because he is nearly a saint and is highly revered by many Old Xaverians. Protecting Eldon Hogan's name too is important because of the millions of dollars that have gone to Xavier College from his trust and there is more to come.

This is shameful hypocrisy when former Provincial Brian McCoy SJ says "we believe the survivors", but not, it seems, when they want compensation for the harm done to them.

This is what a defence lawyer will advise.
Deny everything, limit damages to as little as possible, get a settlement where we don't admit any liability or that the alleged offender actually did it.

For example:
"At the relevant times, Father A and Father B were priests in the society of Jesus and fulfilling their priestly duties when working at Xavier"
That is so manufestly untrue you can't believe they would even try it as a defense.

"Even if Father A and Father B were employees of the Defendant (which is denied), it would not be vicariously liable for their alleged conduct (which conduct is not admitted)."

This defence has been tried forever and has in recent times nearly always failed, and in this case the quote comes from, Father B was an assistant boarder master at Xavier College.


They were both not "employed" because they were not receiving a salary.
The Society of Jesus is not vicariously liable because the alleged assaults were outside their duties and/or took place at a time when they were not performing their duties.

37.It says further that the Defendant is entitled to a permanent stay of the proceeding on the basis that the proceeding is an abuse of process, as the proceeding is manifestly unfair to the Defendant in view of the delay of approximately 50 years since the alleged acts of abuse.

Catholic church uses paedophile priest’s death as shield against new allegations in NSW
♦ www.theguardian.com

Earlier this month, the Lismore diocese won its argument for a permanent stay of civil proceedings brought by a woman who was 14 years old when she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Father Clarence Anderson in 1968 inside her family home.
The church has now twice attempted to have GLJ’s civil case thrown out.
It argued that the woman had never complained before Anderson died in 1996. That left them unable to investigate the veracity of her accusations, the church argued, and would make any trial unfair.

Last year, the NSW supreme court rejected the church’s application for a permanent stay
But this month the appeal court overturned the earlier decision and granted the permanent stay , saying the “trial could not be a fair one”.
The Lismore Diocese said it could not comment due to the potential for a high court appeal.



Sigmund and Carl, from friends to foes.
Differences of opinion arise so easily.
Siggy had a thing for "hysterical" women, Carl had a thing for smacking his wife's bare bottom.
That's not the reason for their divorce..

Marvin Gaye said "what's going on?",
Siggy and Carl went looking.
Idn't that ego super said Siggy,
Carl lurked in the shadow of two doors
"ahh.. key types are different" he exclaimed.


Choose from the many thousands of fascinating disorders in this page-turner of a manual out in time for Christmas.
Acronyms abound within the pages.

Friday on my mind..dada dada daaaaaaaaa.......
Sung by the Easybeats aka The Society of Jesus.

Now.... What ... Have ... We ... Got ... Here....?
This is the job of the forensic psychiatrist when you see one as part of your "how f**ked up his he?" assessment.

Usually you see two of them, one chosen by your lawyers, the other chosen by the Society of Jesus.
The odds on consensus are about as good as Sigmund spanking Carl's wife.

Nevertheless, it must be done. This Friday I'll be seeing the Jesuit's chosen one.
No, No... its not the very (ahemmm...!!) unpopular Dr. Entwhistle.

But seriously now, it will be fascinating to see the different assessments two experts make with the same information.

Who is responsible? - Vicarious Liability

November 2024
The case below, Bird v. DP (that's Bishop Bird of the Ballarat diocese), was appealed to the Appeals Court and failed then to the High Court of Australia who upheld the appeal and said that the priest was not an employee and therefore vicarious liability did not apply.

This incredibly strict interpretation of the law shocked lawyers and there were calls immediately for state governments to enact legislation to remedy it.

It makes you think back to 2010 and John Ellis failing in his claim because the catholic church "did not exist".

December 29, 2021.
A man has successfully sued the Catholic Church (Bird v. DP) after a court found it had vicarious liability for sexual abuse he says he suffered from a notorious priest 50 years ago.
The Victorian man's lawyers believe it is the first such ruling in Australia.
Old Xaverian Justice Jack Forrest said the church’s argument that it was not responsible for the abuse was rejected and described as ‘affront to common sense’

The critical issue in the case was whether Coffey, an assistant parish priest, could be considered a formal employee of the diocese at the time, thereby making it vicariously liable for his actions.
Bid by Catholic church to stop child sexual abuse case rejected by NSW supreme court

The church argued that Coffey was not a formal employee and so it could not be held liable for his actions.
It also said Coffey’s home visits were “social outings” not connected to his work for the church.
The judge in the case, Justice Jack Forrest, described the suggestion as “sheer nonsense”.

“It is, in my view, both inconceivable and an affront to common sense to suggest (as the Diocese put it) that these visits to parishioners’ houses and [the survivor’s] home were unconnected with Coffey’s pastoral role within the Church and merely social outings separate to his role as an assistant priest,” he said.

The court found the abuse occurred and that the diocese was vicariously liable for Coffey’s actions.
♦ www.abc.net.au
♦ www.theguardian.com


Victorian court upholds ruling finding Catholic church liable for sexual abuse by paedophile priest
April 04, 2023
Landmark decision expected to help countless other survivors achieve more compensation for abuse suffered from clergy
Victoria’s highest court has ruled that the Catholic church is vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a paedophile priest
because he was a “servant of the diocese” whose role gave him the “power and intimacy” to access and abuse children.

The decision by the Victorian court of appeal on Monday upholds the original landmark ruling, which, for the first time in Australia,
found the church is vicariously liable for the abuse of its priests.

The decision is expected to help countless other survivors achieve more significant compensation for the abuse they suffered at the hands of paedophile clergy.

The critical issue in the case was whether the diocese and the current Bishop, Paul Bird, could be held liable for Coffey’s actions,
despite the assistant priest not being a formal employee of the church.

DP’s lawyers, Ken Cush and Associates, successfully convinced the Victorian supreme court in late 2021 that,
despite the lack of formal employment, the diocese was “all powerful in the management of clergy within a diocese” and that
activities of an assistant parish priest were under the “direct control” of the priest, who reported to the bishop.

That left the church vicariously liable for Coffey’s abuse, the court found.

The church appealed against the decision. On Monday, however, the court of appeal upheld the previous ruling of vicarious liability.
♦ more... www.theguardian.com


2017 Historical - Seeman, David --- "The law on vicarious liability: recent developments" [2017] PrecedentAULA 73; (2017) 143 Precedent 38

Recent decisions in Australian courts have considered some of the central issues that frequently arise in institutional abuse claims.

The question as to the proper approach to vicarious liability in sexual abuse cases was clarified by the High Court of Australia
in Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC (Prince Alfred College).[1] The content of the duty owed by a government agency to a
child who was being abused was decided by the New South Wales (NSW) Court of Appeal in DC v State of New South Wales (DC).[2]

In Erlich v Leifer & Ors (Erlich),[3] the Supreme Court of Victoria confirmed that a school could be directly liable for the abuse
by a senior employee while not negligently causing the said abuse. In Hand v Morris & State of Victoria (Hand),[4]
the Supreme Court of Victoria applied the principles in Malec v JC Hutton (Malec)[5] to a claim for damages by a
man who had been abused as a child and later went to work full-time in the public service.
This article provides a summary of these cases, and some practical advice for practitioners in the preparation and analysis of sexual abuse claims.


Torts committed in the course of an employee’s employment will be attributable to the employer.
The question of whether or not abuse was committed in the course of one’s employment is not concerned with the fault of the employer.

In Erlich, the plaintiff pleaded that Leifer was, ‘by virtue of her position and responsibilities within’ the school,
she ‘was in fact the mind and will’ of the school so far as management of its teaching, counselling for students and teachers,
and formal or informal mentorship was concerned, and was an ‘embodiment’ of the school
the school was found directly, rather than vicariously, liable for the acts of Leifer.

The trial judge did, however, find that the scope of the defendant’s duty included a duty to report abuse to the police.
The appellants contended that the Department breached its duty of care to them by not reporting the abuse to the police, and had it done so, further abuse would have been prevented


In cases where plaintiffs are injured at a young age, it is especially important to consider the concept of ’loss of earning capacity’. In such cases, loss of earning capacity:
‘does not depend on calculating the income from a particular career which is no longer possible, but in calculating
the damage to a capacity to carry on various careers. It is an estimation of possibilities, not proof of probabilities.’
‘the ascertainment of earning capacity involves an evaluation of possibilities, not establishing a fact as a matter of history.’
♦ classic.austlii.edu.au

Child abuse survivor awarded record $5.3 million payout after suing abuser John Millwood
Wed 22 Dec 2021
A Tasmanian court has awarded a child abuse survivor a landmark amount of more than $5 million after he sued his abuser.
In a statement issued to the media, he said he saw a need to "seek restitutional justice" in order to hold Millwood to account for his "crimes and disgraceful behaviour since".

"No survivor of child sex abuse should ever be subjected to victim-blaming, gaslighting, harassment, misuse of defamation laws, surveillance by private detectives intended to intimidate, and arguments that children can consent to sexual abuse.
♦ www.abc.net.au

Ex-Wesley College student wins record settlement over abuse by two teachers
May 20, 2021
A former Wesley College student has received a $3 million record settlement for institutional child abuse in Victoria, after he was sexually assaulted by two former teachers in the 1970s.
One of them was John McMillan who later taught at Preshil school and continued his abuse of kids there.
♦ www.theage.com.au

♦ Full story on this site



Catholic Church makes record payout in child sex abuse case
January 21, 2021
The Catholic Church has made what is believed to be its highest ever payout to a victim of sexual abuse after
church lawyers forced a 52-year-old man to give harrowing evidence in court about his rape by a priest in the 1970s.

Peter* will receive $2.45 million plus legal costs to compensate him for abuse by teacher and
priest Bertram Adderley, who groomed and raped him between 1977 and 1980 when he was aged 10 to 12.

Lawyers involved in seeking restitution for victims of sexual abuse say they believe the settlement is
up to $1 million higher than any payout previously awarded to someone suing the Catholic Church.

The church is facing hundreds of claims after a number of jurisdictions removed rules that prevented
people going to court to seek compensation for historical sexual abuse, even if they had previously
accepted payouts from church-run schemes such as the Melbourne Response.

A series of significant payouts for sexual abuse have dwarfed those being offered by the federal
government’s National Redress Scheme, set up after the child sex abuse royal commission.
In the last financial year, the scheme made 2504 redress payments,
ranging from less than $10,000 to $150,000, with an average payment of $81,876, government records show.

Peter's settlement was offered on January 13, just hours after he entered the witness box at
his District Court civil trial in Perth and told how Adderley, who died in 1983,
abused him over several years. The abuse included taking Peter to a nudist beach,
raping him in an apartment and forcing him to perform oral sex inside a Perth church where he was an altar boy.

Peter told The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald that being forced by the church to relive
the abuse through giving evidence at the trial had re-traumatised him,
but that he had been determined to call Adderley out and to encourage others to come forward.

"At the time the abuse was occurring, he would tell me, 'Keep it our little secret,
it's all good. Do you really want your mother to be upset by this?' " Peter said.
"It was hardcore to tell your deepest, darkest, most securely kept secrets to a room full of strangers in court.

"It's traumatising but I was determined to do it because what the church allowed their
members to do was evil and evil only prospers in the dark, and what I was determined to do was bring it to the light."

Peter's lawyer, Melbourne-based Michael Magazanik from Rightside Legal,
said the landmark payout was proof victims of abuse could get proper compensation if they had the determination to fight.

"The church has a shocking history," he said. "The abuse is part one, and then the legal
bullying of survivors is part two when pitiful, insulting sums are forced on people."

Mr Magazanik said the laws had changed to allow people to seek compensation,
"but the church has not yet accepted that the ground has shifted under its feet.

"You can't expect the church to act sensibly or charitably, you have to force them to do it
and that's why my client had the courage and amazing determination to actually get into the witness box and tell his story.
That really forced the church to surrender."

Prior to the $2.45m settlement, Peter had been offered and accepted $50,000 from the church.

Adderley's abuse of children first came to light in the 1960s when he was working as a priest
in the West Australian town of Narrogin. Following the accusations, he was relegated to parishes in Nannup and Manjimup.

In 1974, he was accused of molesting a boy inside a Bunbury church and admitted to the abuse.
Former bishop Myles McKeon told the ABC in 2008 that Adderley, while never charged, had subsequently
been "expelled from the priestly ministry". However, records show he moved to Perth and continued his employment as a locum priest.

"The Catholic Church knew this bloke was an offender, and as was its custom, they just moved
him 175 kilometres up the road and gave him a licence to go and access all sorts of other boys," Mr Magazanik said.

"[Peter] came from a happy family and he was just picked off by this disgraceful man and it changed his life trajectory."

Peter suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and he also suffers from ongoing depression
and anxiety. He struggled to hold a job for more than 12 months prior to turning 50, and had turned to drugs.
The impact of the abuse was always with him, he said.

"[The payout] is a sense of vindication, relief and justice because the church can't hide him any longer," he said.

"I still see [Adderley] every morning when I wake up. I still have that shadow and I think I always will,
but now that shadow is in the light. I've brought it out of the dark and I think you're going to see my offender's name a whole lot more often in court files.

"I hope other victims come forward."

The Catholic Archdiocese of Perth declined to comment.

Lawyer Judy Courtin, who represents victims of institutional abuse, welcomed the higher payments
being awarded by courts but said we were “still not there” in terms of paying fair compensation for suffering.

Dr Courtin said the redress scheme was “disgusting” and “designed in cahoots with the institutions
including the Catholic Church and the state to further protect the property of the church and institutions”.

*Not his real name.
♦ www.brisbanetimes.com.au

Making a Claim - What to expect

(May 2023 - this information a bit dated, Quyen Vu SJ became Provincial in Jan. 2022)

A recent claim about Celso Romanin SJ which was made via a Supreme Court writ (October 2020) was settled on the Friday before it was listed for hearing on the Monday.
Romanin is well known, there was a story about him in The Age newspaper, so the SoJ lawyers accepted the abuse occurred, and accepted the Society of Jesus being vicariously liable.
It was all done by the lawyers from both sides.

Another recent informal settlement was done in person with Simon Davies (Jesuit Director of Professional Standards), the survivor had a lawyer , Mr. Davies did not have one with him.
The amount claimed is unknown. The amount claimed seems to make a difference in how they respond to a claim.

But in both cases we see a strategy of distancing.
Its a very hands off approach. Brain McCoy SJ, the provincial is nowhere to be seen.
The accused criminal Jesuit is not involved and kept completely out of it.
The apology is a pro forma written statement.
Brian McCoy SJ has no interest in meeting the sex abuse victim and personally hearing his story or apologise in person.

Its all about the money and getting rid of the complaint and leaving the criminal untouched and happily living in some retirement place like Campion House or Canisius House.

The Society of Jesus still has no published Complaints Handling Policy which they are supposed to have as a member of Catholic Professional Standards Ltd.



Was talking to a survivor Sunday 16, Feb. 2020, who was seeking compensation for abuse he suffered by ♦ Victor Higgs ex-SJ   and   ♦ Theo Overberg SJ     (2023. Overberg convicted of 3 counts of indecent assault in NSW)
He described his experience as shown above.

The Jesuit side is actually on the phone to the Jesuit Curia in Rome, you would assume about the high profile Jesuit (Theo Overberg SJ) and what to do.
He said the Independant mediator was very biased towards the Society of Jesus.
I am very annoyed at Jack Rush who was at Xavier College the same time I was.
Has he no feelings or compassion for his fellow Jesuit educated students who were abused and harmed so badly?
In this case one claim was accepted because the perpetrator, Victor Higgs, had already been convicted and jailed for other offences.
The other claim against a high profile living Jesuit, Theo Overberg SJ, was rejected.
Overberg was in the Jesuit Curia, Rome at the time.
Theo Overberg now faces trial in Parramatta Court for indecent assault of Riverview students on 28 June 2021

Brian McCoy SJ says "we believe the survivors", but that doesn't mean he will do anything about it.
To believe the survivor and at the same time deny that the accused is/was a sex offender is an amazing feat of Moral Turpitude (which is still the norm in year 2022)

Making a Claim against the Society of Jesus, Australia.
You choose to not go to the Redress Scheme and approach the Jesuits either informally or formally ( a Supreme Court suit).
Simon Davies (Director of Professional Standards) is the contact person.
At Jesuit national office, 120 Power St. Hawthorn, Vic. (03) 9810 7300       professionalstandards@sjasl.org.au

Informal Claim: Your documentation presented directly to the Society of Jesus.
Formal Claim: Your lawyer lodges a Supreme Court writ, the Society of Jesus has to respond to that.


1. Prepare your claim.
You can claim compensation for sexual assault and/or physical assault.
(a) Get a lawyer. [1]
(b) Calculate what you consider to be your economic loss. [2]
(c) Calculate what you consider to be your non-economic loss (General Damages - pain and suffering) [3]
(d) Get an impact assessment from a forensic, trauma informed psychiatrist/psychologist. [4]
(e) Get any supporting documents. Your school history, exam results, medical history, work history, relationships history.
(f) Write down your own impact statement to give to your lawyer.
(g) State the assault event/s with as much clarity as you can. Dates, times, places but do not guess, say "on or about" if you are not sure.
Be careful of stating something as true if it can be challenged.

2. Submit your Informal Claim to the Society of Jesus.
The Society of Jesus currently (April 2019) has no public Complaints Handling Policy.
They can look at your claim and do what they like.
They can reject it entirely.

They might have you assessed by a psychiatrist they choose.
Be very careful of this, they are known to be very biased in favour of the Jesuits.
Only get any seperate assessment form a psychiatrist you have researched and know can be trusted to truthful and professional.
They use this separate assessment against you because it usually says your harm is
much less than your own psych assessment says.

If your complaint is strong and they can't easily reject it, their lawyers will produce a document denying any liability,
demand a Deed of Release and offer you an amount of compensation money.
If this amount is not satisfactory your lawyer can try to negotiate with them for a greater amount.
This offer document will have a sense of finality to it.
It will say you can also go to the Redress Scheme if you don't like their offer.
They take a rock hard position to try to dis-empower you.
Boxing you into a choice of accepting the offer, going to the Redress Scheme or doing a civil suit.

3. Deed of Release.
An offer of compensation will include a Deed of Release.
"full release and confidentiality" means you can't say anything about receiving compensation or the amount or the process to anybody.
You surrender all rights to any further claims against the Society of Jesus for this matter.
October 2020: A recent report of a settlement says that there was no confidentiality clause in it.

4. Formal Claim - Supreme Court writ.
It has to be the Supreme Court if you are claiming more then $100,000 damages.
The hard road - very time consuming , expensive and emotionally exhausting.
Your lawyer will prepare a Statement of Claim, this has to accurate and in accordance with the law and be accepted by the court.
The court can dismiss a claim that is not considered correct and satisfactory.

The Jesuit's lawyers will object to anything they can in your Statement of Claim.
It might be a date, a number, a name - anything they can find to lodge an objection and stall the proceeding.
Your lawyer might have to amend it and resubmit it, they will probably object to that too.
All this is designed to add a lot of time and cost to the proceeding.


When a Statement of Claim is finally accepted by the court (no more objections)
then usually negotiations will begin.
The court does not want it to go to trial, the court very much prefers a negotiated or mediated settlement.
How this goes depends very much on how strong your position is.
If the Jesuit's lawyers see you as having a good chance of success at trial they will be far more flexible in the negotiations.
The last thing the Society of Jesus wants is a claim successful at trial. (there has never been one).
Because that would be bad publicity and also set a precedent for damages.

Unfortunately, because they play hard-ball with you, you have to play hard-ball with them,
you and your lawyer have to be ready and willing to go to trial and to let them know that.
This requires a big commitment and lots of money that you and your lawyer must agree on at the beginning of your association.
You can still get in a "stuck" position with No Win - No Fee law firms.
During negotiations, if there is an offer, your lawyer might recommend you accept it,
because they are unwilling to spend anymore time and money on your case.
A No Win - No Fee agreement might state that if they recommend you accept the offer and you do not,
you will be liable for all your lawyers fees out of your own pocket [5].
If that happens you have no choice really, disempowered again.


5. Damages - Case Histories
The Society of Jesus (and Towards Healing and the Melbourne Response) do not assess harm done to a person
and an appropriate amount of compensation in the manner a court would.
The Jesuits pick and arbitrary amount based on what they have paid out previously and how serious they consider the claim they are looking at.

This amount, it seems from the document a claimant receives, is just taking into account
General Damages (Non-Economic Loss - "pain and suffering") , they do not fully assess the loss suffered by a survivor in the way a court would.
Its really just a dirty power game of getting the survivor to accept a minimal amount and go away and keep quiet.

Recent (2019) example of damages awarded by a NSW judge.
The Referee assessed each head of damage as follows: Damages

Non-Economic Loss (assessed at 50% of a Most Extreme Case)	$306,500
Past Economic Loss	$474,462
Past Superannuation Loss	$52,191
Interest on Past Economic Loss	$189,595
Future Income Loss	$405,420
Future Superannuation Loss	$50,427
Past Medical Expenses	$10,988.75
Future Medical Expenses	$58,905
Total	$1,548,488.75

The Referee’s reasoning offers much needed guidance in assessing personal injury damages for victims of childhood sexual and physical abuse.
koffels.com.au/student-awarded-1-5-million-sexual-abuse/

Notes:
[1]
Get a lawyer. This is not easy. There are specialist personal injury law firms who mostly work on a No Win-No Fee basis.
There law firms who specialise in sex abuse claims also.
My advice is to shop around. have a fairly concise statement about your case to submit to law firms and see what response you get.
Try to make a judgement on how serious they are about your case.
In the law business there is the attitude that you are just another case
and they calculate what they can get and then go get it as quickly as possible.

[2]
Note: If you preparing for a fomal claim your lawyers will get a forensic accounting firm to do the economic loss assessment.
This can be problematic though as your lawyers brief them on what scenarios to use.
Hypothetical "could have been" scenarios are not done so its based on what you did achieve though not successfully because of your injuries.
This is illogical legal madness because its using a guideline AFTER the abuse and injury.

DIY
Calculate what you consider to be your economic loss.
I suggest you do 3 calculations. Low, medium and high.
But for the abuse you suffered what might you have achieved income wise.
Base your calculations on average weekly earnings, today's money, for that type of occupation.
1. Blue collar worker, tradesperson, labourer etc.
2. Middel level professional. Teacher, accountant, real estate agent etc.
3. High level professional. Doctor, surgeon, lawyer, barrister, dentist, company director etc.
Subtract what you have earned from the 3 above amounts to get a low to high range of economic loss.

You might get a range of loss from say $500,000 - $10 million.
As in the example above a judge would make a realistic assessment of your potential and what you might have achieved, you should do the same.


[3]
Non-economic loss (General Damages - pain and suffering)
This amount is legally limited to $580,000 in Victoria and $612,000 in NSW.
This is very subjective, how do you rate your suffering on a scale of 1 - 10?
Refer to that case above to get a sense of how a judge thinks about it.

[4]
Impact assessment from a forensic, trauma informed psychiatrist/psychologist.
If you have not been seeing a psychiatrist/psychologist already you will have to find one.
This requires research as in finding a lawyer.
Try to get referrals form others who have done it.
Their job is not to engage in therapy with you but to understand and assess the harm that has been done to you.

If you are planning on making a claim and also planning on seeing a psychiatrist/psychologist for therapy,
make sure the psychiatrist/psychologist acts forensically with you.
That is you have to avoid any situation where you have received "suggestion" or received
too much "help" in remembering things or how things have affected you.

It has happened (the Skarbek case) that a psychologist's notes can be made available to the defence.
So, unfortunately, you should not tell your therapist anything you wouldn't want the defence lawyers to know.
Update March 24, 2022.
Push to protect sexual assault victims’ communications with doctors enters parliament
Victorian alleged sexual assault victims will have the right to defend their confidential communications being aired in court under new amendments to be introduced to state parliament by Justice Party MP Stuart Grimley.
♦ www.theguardian.com

[5]
No Win - No Fee Lawyers.
Read carefully the agreement document you get before you sign it, make sure you
fully understand the how the lawyers fees are calculated and where the money to run your case comes from.

One No Win - No Fee lawyer , for example, does not use much of their own money,
they arrange the money as a loan from a litigation funding entity for which you are liable if
your agreement with the law firm collapses.
There are two main litigation funders used. One charges interest the other charges 5% of the amount awarded.

Check your agreement for a clause that says if the lawyer recommends you accept an amount
offered and you don't accept it, they consider the case completed and you are liable for all costs and disbursements.

♦ GUIDING PRINCIPLES Australian Province of the Society of Jesus, Child Sexual Abuse Civil Claims




These are the Model Litigant Guidelines from the Truth Justice and Healing Council the Society of Jesus say they accept.

GUIDELINES FOR CHURCH AUTHORITIES IN RESPONDING TO CIVIL CLAIMS FOR CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

Background and purpose
The community expects Church authorities to pursue a compassionate and consistent
approach towards victims of child sexual abuse within their institutions.
These guidelines have been prepared by the Truth Justice and Healing Council
and endorsed by the Supervisory Group to promote justice and consistency in the way
Church authorities handle claims and conduct litigation in relation to child sexual abuse.

The guidelines are similar to the models adopted by many governments in Australia. T
hey apply to current and future cases.
Church authorities aim to be fair, reasonable and honest in their dealings with victims
of child sexual abuse.

Respect and dignity will be afforded to victims, their families and other third parties
affected by the abuse. Every effort will be made to ensure victims feel safe and secure,
both in the telling of their stories and in the pursuit of justice.

The guidelines apply flexibly and respond to the circumstances of each claim.
However, they are not intended to prevent Church authorities from acting properly to
defend claims that they consider should be defended.

Church authorities recognise that they cannot remove the pain and suffering of victims
of abuse but they will strive, through kindness, understanding and hope, to support
victims emotionally, spiritually and financially in their rightful quest to live a full life.

The guidelines commence on 1 January 2016.

Guidelines
When dealing with civil claims related to child sexual abuse,
Church authorities should at all times act honestly, fairly and compassionately by:

(a)
dealing with claims promptly and not causing unnecessary delay in the handling of claims and litigation

(b)
assisting the claimant to identify the correct defendant to respond to the legal proceedings

(c)
facilitating access to records relating to the claimant, subject to considering the
privacy entitlements of third parties and documents that are legally professionally privileged

(d)
making an early assessment of:

(i)
the Church authority’s prospects of success in defending the proceedings, and

(ii)
the Church authority’s potential liability in the claim made against it

(e)
acting consistently in the handling of claims and litigation

(f)
mindful of the potential for litigation to be a traumatic experience for claimants
who have suffered sexual abuse, endeavouring to avoid legal proceedings wherever
possible or to confine the scope of the proceedings

(g)
paying legitimate claims without litigation

(h)
considering resolving matters without the need for a claimant to take the formal step of filing a statement of claim

(i)
providing information about services and supports available to claimants and considering
requests from claimants for counselling, pastoral and psychological care assistance,
and other kinds of acknowledgement or redress, including meetings with the Church leader, site visits, etc

(j)
offering, and participating fully and effectively in, alternative dispute resolution processes wherever possible

(k)
if it is not possible to avoid litigation, keeping the costs of litigation to a minimum, including by:

(i)
not requiring the claimant to prove a matter which the Church authority knows to be true or has accepted as true

(ii)
not contesting liability if the Church authority knows that the dispute is only about the amount of compensation


(iii) monitoring the progress of the litigation and using appropriate methods to resolve the litigation,
including alternative dispute resolution, settlement offers and payments into court, and

(iv) ensuring that arrangements are made so that a person participating in any
alternative dispute resolution process or settlement negotiations on behalf of the Church
authority can enter into a settlement of the claim or legal proceedings in the course of the process or the negotiations

(l)
not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim

(m)
if a statutory limitation period is available as a defence, not relying on that defence unless:

(i)
the claim involves other defendants that are not Church defendants and there is a risk
that the Church authority might bear a disproportionate share of the whole liability to the claimant, or

(ii)
the lapse of time has a burdensome effect on the Church authority that is so serious
that the Church authority considers that a fair trial would not be possible

(n)
if there is a need for expert evidence, co-operating with claimants about choice of expert,
to facilitate agreement on the use of a single expert if practicable

(o)
not undertaking and pursuing appeals unless the Church authority believes that it has reasonable prospects for success

(p)
apologising if the Church authority is aware that it or its representatives or lawyers
have acted wrongfully, improperly or in breach of these guidelines.


Consistent approaches
Any Church entity which has adopted guiding principles dealing with the same subject
matters as the guidelines should ensure that there is no inconsistency between those
guiding principles and the guidelines and should not act inconsistently with the guidelines.

November 2015

Australian bishops to implement new protocol on responding to abuse     ♦ National Response Protocol download

From the Policy:

The Protocol is proposed to all Catholic Church Authorities and entities in Australia,
providing high-level principles and direction on how responses to concerns and allegations of child abuse are best managed.

the Protocol is established as the national benchmark against which local policies and procedures should be aligned.

Specifically, Royal Commission recommendation 7.7, consistent with Child Safe Standard 6,
requires processes to respond to complaints of child abuse which are child-focused,
with a clear, accessible and child-focused complaint handling policy and procedure that sets out how the institution should respond to complaints.

The implementation of the Protocol
In accord with the NCSS, each Church entity — or aggregate of entities — is to have clearly established structures and processes to manage complaint handling.

The Protocol is a publication of Australian Catholic Safeguarding Ltd, which has responsibility for its implementation and continuous review.


All Church Authorities and entities are to:
Ensure responses are delivered by suitably trained and skilled personnel.
Ensure that an investigator, if interviewing children or adults subjected to childhood abuse, has the relevant qualifications and experiences to do so.

Ensure that investigations are conducted with integrity and impartiality,
ensuring that processes and outcomes can withstand reasonable external scrutiny and that conflicts
of interest (perceived, potential or actual) are identified, addressed and managed appropriately.
Investigations must be conducted on behalf of the Church by skilled parties with appropriate expertise


All Church Authorities and entities are to:
Communicate and engage effectively with children and adults who may have suffered abuse, their families and carers, the community and the media.

where there is a public or media inquiry about a concern or allegation, provide information
in a transparent and accountable manner where possible, especially if it is already in the public domain.


(1) Providing support and engagement that is person-focused and trauma-informed


It is the role of police and statutory authorities to investigate criminal allegations of abuse of a child.
If an allegation relates to criminal conduct and has been reported to police,
the Church Authority or entity does not start its own investigation until police have advised it can proceed.
The aim of an investigation is to decide whether allegations can be proven on the balance of probabilities
(taking into account the standard set in Briginshaw v Briginshaw) and
to identify which actions the Church Authority or entity needs to take following the investigation.


Appoint an Investigator
A suitably qualified external investigator with experience investigating child abuse — historical and/or contemporary — is appointed as soon as possible.

It is critical that the investigator appointed:
• is able to maintain impartiality and does not have any conflicts of interest (real, perceived or potential);
• has appropriate knowledge and expertise in interviewing children and adults subjected to child abuse, including an understanding of trauma-informed responses.


In the absence of an admission by the respondent, the investigator assesses and weighs the evidence
with regard to reliability, relevance, corroboration, plausibility, objectivity and consistency.

• In determining whether the available evidence is sufficient to sustain an allegation,
investigators apply the “balance of probabilities” as the standard of proof.

This means that an investigator determines whether it is more likely than not that the abuse happened.
A sustained finding is based on material that shows that all the facts necessary to establish the
incident are made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the investigator as provided in Briginshaw v Briginshaw.*

(* The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a
given description and the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are
considerations which affect the answer to the question whether the allegation has been proved.)



A suitably qualified external investigator with experience investigating child abuse — historical and/or contemporary — is appointed as soon as possible.

It is critical that the investigator appointed:
• is able to maintain impartiality and does not have any conflicts of interest (real, perceived or potential);
• has appropriate knowledge and expertise in interviewing children and adults subjected to child abuse,
including an understanding of trauma-informed responses.


The elements of response
the offer of a personal/pastoral response from the Church Authority or entity,
including an apology;
an opportunity for a person who has been abused to meet with a senior representative of the entity;
and/or an assurance as to the steps that the Church Authority or entity has taken, or will take, to protect children against future abuse;
• access to therapeutic counselling, psychological and/or psychiatric care as needed throughout a person’s life who has experienced abuse;
and
• a financial payment as a tangible means of recognising the harm which the person may have suffered.


Typically, findings either reach the conclusion that the allegation is “sustained” or “not sustained”
or “unable to be determined” or “unfounded”. In the case of reportable conduct investigations,
findings are made according to their own more detailed category of findings and consistent
with the guidance material for any reportable conduct scheme for those matters within that scope.


ADDRESS AND COMMUNICATE OUTCOMES
A letter to the person who brought forward the concern or allegation includes information the findings and outcomes.

Different avenues of approach
1. DIRECT APPROACH: Approaching the Church Authority or entity directly or through a representative
2. REDRESS SCHEME: Making an application through a redress scheme, such as the National Redress Scheme (www.nationalredress.gov.au)
3. CIVIL CLAIM: pursuing a civil claim against the Church Authority or entity
4. OTHER PROCESS: other relevant process that is available to a person


______________________________________
*[1]
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 considered how the requisite standard of proof should operate in civil proceedings.
The case affirmed that the standard of proof that applies to all civil matters is the balance of probabilities.

The Briginshaw principle derives from obiter remarks in the decision of Dixon J.
In essence, the principle stands for the proposition that more convincing evidence is necessary
to meet the standard of proof where an allegation is particularly serious, or unlikely to have occurred.
Contrary to popular belief, the Briginshaw principle in no way alters the standard of proof in civil matters
– it simply means that cases involving allegations of a more serious nature may require stronger evidence
to be adduced to establish the cause of action. This principle is typically applied in cases involving fraud or dishonesty.



Jan 28, 2021
and any new allegations in the Catholic Church in Australia will be more compassionate and just,
said Archbishop Mark Coleridge, head of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference.

The new framework to be implemented Feb. 1 is intended as a national benchmark,
forming a consistent approach for Catholic authorities and entities in investigating,
compensating and providing ongoing care for people alleging child sexual abuse and for survivors of such abuse.

Calling it "an important step forward," Coleridge said the new protocol
"offers a trauma-informed approach to supporting those who have been betrayed in church settings,"
while it "demands an approach from the church that is compassionate and just."

"It also insists upon respect for each individual's personal story and circumstances," he said.

The bishops' conference formally adopted the protocol last November following two years of consultation
— including with survivors and their advocates — within and outside the church.

It also draws upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The new protocol will replace the church's current two protocols, Towards Healing and The Melbourne Response,
although these will continue to be in use until the end of the year or the conclusion of matters currently being managed.

Karen Larkman, director of the Archdiocese of Sydney's Safeguarding and Ministerial Integrity Office,
welcomed the change. She said it would "provide a consistent, trauma-informed response within the Catholic Church in Australia
to survivors of abuse, as well as further promoting a culture of preventing harm to children and adults at risk of harm."

"Importantly, it puts in place a process of transparency and continual improvement for ongoing care for survivors of abuse," she added.
"This really is a significant step forward, and we feel very positive about the future of safeguarding in the church and its accompaniment of survivors."

Coleridge acknowledged that the current protocols had been criticized "in large part because of inconsistent or incomplete application"
and said the church continues to work hard to strengthen the safeguards that have been put in place in more recent years.

As well as outlining principles and processes for responding to concerns and allegations of abuse, whether historical or contemporary,
the new protocol also offers guidance on how to engage with those affected by abuse, he said.


♦ www.ncronline.org
♦ National Response Protocol
♦ National Response Protocol download



A 1988 response to Becky Starr from Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland regarding her abuse allegations against School Sister of Notre Dame Sr. Mary Olivia Reindl.
(Provided photo, with Starr's real name removed for privacy)         ♦ www.globalsistersreport.org