Young v Waller Legal & Ors [2025] VSC 522 (Link pending).
In this matter the court was required to determine some preliminary points. The factual circumstances are complex.
The plaintiff (now deceased) had settled a claim against the third defendant (Trustees for the Christian Brothers) in 2017 when represented by the first defendant Waller Legal. In 2019 he engaged the second defendant (Knowmore Legal) in relation to an application under the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (Cth). Mr Shanahan was offered some counselling and a ‘direct personal response’, but no further monetary compensation. On 17 February 2021, Mr Shanahan signed a document indicating that he accepted the offer of counselling but did not wish to receive a direct personal response.
Mr Shanahan nevertheless believed that he received inadequate compensation. Section 27QA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958, were it to apply, would have allowed Mr Shanahan bring a second action against the Christian Brothers notwithstanding the previous settlement, were he able to persuade the Court under s 27QB of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to have the 2017 settlement set aside. Section 27QA(3)(b), however, says that s 27QA does not apply to any ‘accepted offer of redress under’ the National Redress Scheme.
Mr Shanahan commenced this proceeding in negligence against Waller Legal and Knowmore Legal. In its defence, Knowmore Legal contended that on a proper construction of the National Redress Scheme Act and the relevant communications, Mr Shanahan’s participation in the National Redress Scheme did not in fact prevent him from applying to the Court to have the 2017 settlement set aside and then to commence a fresh proceeding against the Christian Brothers. That required determination.
Without going into the detail of the matter, the court held that the plaintiff accepted an ‘offer of redress’ for the purpose of s 43 of the Act, and by so doing enlivened the releases and discharges set out in that section. The plaintiff had discharged the third defendant and could not bring or continue civil proceedings against the third defendant.
As to whether the plaintiff could make an application under s 27QD of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958, the court noted that s 27QD(3)(a) provides that s 27QD does not apply to an accepted offer of redress under the National Redress Act.
It appears that the matter will now continue as a claim alleging negligence on the part of the first and second defendants (the former lawyers).
[BillMaddensWordpress #2428]