In the recent matter of DB v The State of Western Australia [2025] WADC 60, the plaintiff, DB (a pseudonym), brought proceedings against the first defendant, The State of Western Australia, and the second defendant, Children and Community Services Ministerial Body, in relation to historical sexual abuse.

The plaintiff was born in 1980. He is alleged to have been sexually abused as a child by multiple perpetrators during four separate residential placements while a ward of the State. He claims damages for the psychiatric injuries and other losses caused as a consequence of the negligence of the Director General and the defendants leading to the abuse. When the plaintiff was 8 years old, he and his 5-year-old sister, CB were made wards of the State. This arose out of the plaintiff’s disclosure of sexual abuse against himself and his sister by their stepfather, GN. The intervention of the State was considered necessary by the Department for Community Services (the Department) as their mother was unwilling to act protectively toward them and the children were believed to be at risk of further harm. The children were apprehended in July 1988 and a wardship committal order was made under s 30(1)(a) of the Child Welfare Act 1947 (WA) (CWA) on 5 December 1988. The plaintiff and his sister were recommitted to the care of the State as a ward on subsequent occasions. The wardship ultimately ended when the plaintiff turned 18 on 10 January 1998. From the time of the wardship order in late 1988 onward, the plaintiff and his sister were moved to and from the homes of various caregivers. This included homes of other members of their family, foster carers, institutions, and on one occasion they were returned back to the home of their stepfather. On a number of these occasions both children were sexually abused. The plaintiff’s case relates to the periods of time when he was under the care, protection, guardianship, management and control of the State and the Director General of the Department for Community Services (DG). The plaintiff was repeatedly sexually abused by various family members and others while in residential placement.

The plaintiff contends that the State of Western Australia (first defendant) and the Children and Community Services Ministerial Body (second defendant) owed him a duty of care that was breached when he was negligently exposed to harm. He also contends that the first defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of the DG and the Department to whom the DG had delegated certain functions.

The defendants assert that neither defendant owed any relevant pleaded duty of care to the plaintiff. Therefore, they say there is no basis at law for either defendant to be found directly liable to the plaintiff even if relevant harm was suffered by the plaintiff. The defendants admit that there was a breach of duty by the DG through the Department in returning the plaintiff to GN in April 1989, however they deny that this gives rise to any liability of either defendant. The first defendant contends that even if the DG was negligent and breached a duty owed to the plaintiff, the first defendant would not be vicariously liable given their assertion that the DG, through the Department and its employees, were at all material times acting in good faith. The first defendant says that vicarious liability can only exist where the duty holder is first liable. Accordingly, it is said that there can be no vicarious liability of the first defendant in these circumstances. The second defendant cannot be vicariously liable for the acts of the DG or the Department, as it does not have the requisite relationship, that is, it is not an employer.

At [453], the Court provided as follows:

Given the second defendant was not the employer of the DG nor the Department workers, and did not owe any relevant duty to the plaintiff directly, there can be no liability in the second defendant.

At [518], the Court provided:

I do, however, find that the actions of those from the Department who were involved in the returning of the plaintiff to GN in April 1989, have not established the evidential onus that they were acting in good faith at that time. There is no basis to conclude that the DG was acting in good faith, as no evidence was led at all regarding this. I reach the same conclusion with respect to the decision-making process that led to the continuation of the placement of the plaintiff with MB and the termination of the plaintiff’s wardship in December 1990 and his permanent placement with MB.

Ultimately, in relation to liability, the Court provided at [571] as follows:

Having regard to my findings regarding the liability of the DG and the vicarious liability of the employer, I find:

    1. The first defendant is vicariously liable for harm caused by the DG’s negligence as set out herein. 
    2. A case against the second defendant is not established.

In other words, the court was satisfied that all of the sexual abuse alleged by the plaintiff occurred and found the first defendant (the State) vicariously liable for the negligence of the Director General (DG) and the Department.

In relation to quantum, the Court awarded damages as follows:

General damages – $400,000
Past loss of earning capacity – $900,849
Interest on past losses – $626,509
Future loss of earning capacity – $549,626
Future loss of superannuation – $73,557
Past medical expenses – $624.99
Future medical expenses – $102,167.79
Travel – $5,000
Exemplary damages – $150,000
S15K Deduction – $58,418.09

Totalling $2,846,960.60

Ultimately, on 9 September 2025, the Western Australia District Court held that the Plaintiff’s claim against the first defendant is successful. The Court awarded damages for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $2,846.960.69. The Court further held that the Plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant be dismissed. The Court ordered that it will hear the parties further in relation to costs.

We are specialist abuse lawyers and can help you receive acknowledgement, meaningful apology and financial resolution from those institutions and systems of power that failed to protect you from harm. If you would like advice in relation to a childhood or adult sexual, physical and/or psychological/emotional abuse claim in any jurisdiction in Australia, please reach out to Littles Lawyers today. 

Further Abuse Law information and case law updates can be found on our website.