In the recent matter of Flecknoe v Pared Ltd [2025] NSWSC 775, the plaintiff, Mr Sam Flecknoe, commenced court proceedings seeking damages against the defendant, Pared Ltd, for a historical child sexual abuse which is alleged to have occurred while the plaintiff was a student at Redfield College, Dural, New South Wales (“the school”) in or about 2008. 

The original Statement of Claim listed the Catholic Diocese of Broken Bay as the defendant. On 24 September 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim, listing the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta as the proper defendant (“1ASOC”). The 1ASOC was not otherwise amended. On 12 November 2024, the plaintiff filed a second amended statement of claim, listing Pared Ltd (“the defendant”) as the proper defendant (“2ASOC”). The 2ASOC was not otherwise amended.  

On 20 April 2025, the defendant filed a Notice of Motion (“the motion”) seeking that the 2ASOC be struck out, pursuant to Rules 14.28(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”), or alternatively, that the plaintiff be ordered under Rule 15.1(1) [2] of the UCPR to set out further particulars of the claim within the 2ASOC. In relation to the alternative, the defendant specifically sought that the plaintiff be ordered to: 

  1. identify the alleged risk of harm with sufficient precision;
  2. particularise the material facts upon which it contends that the risk of harm was foreseeable and not insignificant;
  3. identify and particularise the precautions it is alleged a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would have taken to prevent the occurrence of the alleged risk of harm;
  4. particularise the material facts upon which it is contended that the defendant’s negligence was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm and that it is appropriate for the scope of the defendant’s liability to extend to the harm so caused; and
  5. identify and particularise the duties assigned to the perpetrator in his role as teacher at the school to provide religious instruction to students which provided him with the authority, power, trust and control and the ability to achieve intimacy with the plaintiff. 

The defendant also sought that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the motion. 

At the outset of the hearing, the parties acknowledged that a proposed third amended statement of claim (“3ASOC”) had been provided to the defendant on 7 July 2025 and was annexed to the affidavit of Samantha Adele McRae sworn 7 July 2025 relied upon in the plaintiff’s case on the motion. It was common ground between the parties that the matter would proceed on the basis of the 3ASOC rather than the 2ASOC, and the defendant conceded that it would have no objection if the court were to grant the plaintiff leave to file the 3ASOC. 

The plaintiff conceded that further particulars should be provided in respect of: (1) the constructive knowledge of the defendant as to the general risk of child predation in schools in 2008, (2) the precautions which the defendant ought to have taken to prevent the risk of harm, and (3) the authority, trust, power or control exerted by the priest by virtue of his role, being particulars concerning vicarious liability and the circumstances giving rise to the occasion of harm. These concessions were properly made by the plaintiff. As such, the Court provided that “…there is clearly a basis for the grant of the alternative relief sought by the defendant, as some pleadings plainly require better particulars. I am minded to order the delivery of further particulars on this basis.” 

At [48] to [50], the Court provided as follows:  

The motion to strike out the 3ASOC pursuant to r 14.28 of the UCPR must fail. However, the alternative order sought, that the plaintiff file further particulars pursuant to r 15.10 of the UCPR, will be granted. 

As such, the plaintiff should file and serve a further amended statement of claim in the form annexed at Exhibit A (being the 3ASOC), which should also include amendments to provide for the inclusion of further particulars at: 

  1. Paragraph 8, as to constructive knowledge and the particulars said to be established at this stage by reference to (a) common knowledge and experience of other institutions in a similar position of the defendant; (b) an accumulation of complaints being made; (c) public notoriety of a particular risk of harm; (d) publications and academic knowledge which might be expected to be read by people in the defendant’s position; and (e) the obviousness or the likelihood of the event happening in the application of common sense (PWJI v The State of New South Wales [2020] NSWSC 1235 at [75] (per Garling J)).
  2. Paragraph 12(a) and (j), as to the specific precautions which the defendant ought to have taken to prevent the risk of harm.
  3. Paragraph 22, as to any particular authority, trust, power or control exerted by the priest by virtue of his role. 

That conclusion gives rise to a consideration as to whether each party should pay its own costs. My preliminary view is that a costs order should be made in those terms. In the event the parties do not agree with this preliminary view, I will make provision for further submissions as to costs. 

Ultimately, on 22 July 2025, the New South Wales Supreme Court ordered as follows:  

  1. If there is joint acceptance of the preliminary view as to costs, the Short Minutes of Order should reflect the agreement of the parties.
  2. If there is a dispute as to costs, the defendants shall file and serve the order they propose as to costs accompanying the Short Minutes of Order together with short written submissions in support of the same, and the plaintiffs shall file and serve their reply submissions and the orders they propose within a further 7 days.
  3. Subject to the above, costs are reserved. 

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.