In the recent matter of HM (a pseudonym) v Sister Mary Monaghan [2025] VSC 51, the plaintiff, HM (a pseudonym), commenced court proceedings seeking damages against the defendant, Sister Mary Monaghan, for injuries she alleges she suffered whilst a resident at Nazareth House, Queensland. The State of Queensland is listed as a Third Party in these proceedings.

The plaintiff in this proceeding is a woman in her late sixties. The defendant is the nominated representative of the Sisters of Nazareth (‘Sisters’). Up until 1982, the Sisters operated Nazareth House in the suburbs of Brisbane (‘home’), which provided care for children and the elderly. The plaintiff was a resident at the home between 1961 and 1967 (‘relevant period’), having been made a ward of the State of Queensland (‘State’) when she was five years old. The plaintiff was 11 years old when she left the home and has had a difficult life since. The plaintiff contends that many of those difficulties are as a consequence of the mistreatment and abuse she suffered at the home while under the care of the Sisters and the State.

This proceeding was commenced on 13 April 2022. The allegations, in summary, are as follows (at [2]):

…the plaintiff alleges that she was sexually, physically and emotionally abused and falsely imprisoned during her placement at Nazareth House in Brisbane in the State of Queensland (the Home) between approximately July 1961 and late 1967 (the Relevant Period).

In relation to the alleged sexual abuse, the plaintiff alleges at paragraphs 10 to 13 of the ASOC that:

(a) she was sexually abused by three priests employed at the Home by the Sisters of Nazareth (the Sisters);

(b) the abuse occurred on an unidentified number of occasions between 1964 and 1967;

(c) immediately prior to the abuse, the plaintiff would be taken to the Nuns’ quarters at the Home by servants and/or agents of the Sisters, including (but not limited to) Sisters Gregory, Giles and Philomena, after Mass on Sundays;

(d) the plaintiff would then be left in the Nuns’ quarters with the priest who had conducted the Mass; and

(e) the plaintiff would then be sexually abused by three unidentified priests.

In relation to the alleged physical abuse, the plaintiff alleges at paragraph 14 of the ASOC that she was subject to serious physical abuse, including the following:

 (a) being repeatedly struck on an unidentified number of occasions and time period with a feather duster, cane or belt with a buckle, all over her body by staff employed at the Home including (but not limited to) Sister Philomena;

(b) having methylated spirits put on the welts caused by the above physical abuse and being belted further with a feather duster, cane or belt with a buckle, in the event she cried. This alleged abuse occurred on an unidentified number of occasions and time period and was perpetrated by an unidentified individual(s);

(c) having another child’s urine-soaked underwear rubbed in her face and then being made to stand in a corner with the urine-soaked underwear on her head on a regular and routine basis. This alleged abuse occurred on an unidentified number of occasions and time period and was perpetrated by an unidentified individual(s); and

(d) being caned when a child resident whom the plaintiff was charged to look after and who allegedly had kidney problems wet herself. This alleged abuse occurred on an unidentified number of occasions and time period and was perpetrated by an unidentified individual(s).

In relation to the alleged emotional abuse, the plaintiff alleges at paragraph 15 of the ASOC that:

(a) the plaintiff would be told to wait in the recreational room on the basis her mother was attending the Home to visit her despite this being untrue. This alleged abuse occurred on an unidentified number of occasions and time period and was perpetrated by an unidentified individual(s); and

(b) the plaintiff was told she was the Devil’s child or spawn, useless and stupid. This alleged abuse occurred on an unidentified number of occasions and time period and was perpetrated by an unidentified individual(s).

The plaintiff alleged that the Sisters owed her a duty to protect her from the reasonably foreseeable risk of harm from sexual, physical and psychological abuse, and breached that duty by, among other things, failing to adequately supervise the plaintiff, the Sisters and the three unidentified priests (‘three priests’). The plaintiff claimed that she has suffered psychiatric injury as a consequence of the sexual, physical and psychological abuse she experienced at the home, including post-traumatic stress disorder, persistent depressive disorder and substance use disorder.

The defendant says she does not know and therefore cannot admit the allegations of sexual abuse, and that she requires further and better particulars of the identity of the three priests, and of the orders and/or diocese to which they belonged.

In response to the defendant’s interrogatories in relation to the identity of the three priests, the plaintiff said that the three priests were Catholic priests, but she could not identify the order or congregation to which they belonged. She said the three priests would come to give Mass at the home at around 8.00am on Sundays, and remain at the home thereafter. They would abuse her and other girls in the nuns’ quarters after Sunday Mass. The Sisters who took the plaintiff to the nuns’ quarters were Sr Gregory, Sr Philomena, and Sr Giles.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claims of sexual abuse should be stayed because the plaintiff’s inability to identify the three priests meant that it is not possible for the defendant to have a fair opportunity to respond to and to defend those claims.

In response, the plaintiff says that, in the current legal context (including the High Court’s recent consideration of the effect of the abolition of limitation periods upon the principles governing applications of the current kind), the defendant must clear a very high bar in order to persuade the Court that the plaintiff’s sexual abuse claims should be stayed. The defendant has not cleared that bar, and while the inability of the plaintiff to identify the three priests creates a forensic impediment to both parties, the other evidence and information available to the parties as a consequence of their investigations will enable the parties to have a fair, if not perfect trial. In any event, to the extent that the lapse of time between the plaintiff’s residence in the home and the issue of this proceeding has caused the defendant prejudice, part of that prejudice is attributable to the defendant’s own failure to promptly investigate claims of abuse at the home made by other former residents of the home (‘claimants’) since 1999 and the plaintiff’s claims, which were notified to the defendant in late 2019.

The court commented at [17]:

The defendant’s application for a stay is unsurprising, given the forensic difficulties associated with the lapse of time since HM resided at the home, and HM’s inability to identify the three priests. However, I am not satisfied that the defendant does not have sufficient information and evidence available to her to enable her to fairly defend HM’s claims in this proceeding. Accordingly, the stay application will be dismissed.

The Court further provided at [175]:

Accordingly, I am unconvinced that, in light of the observations made by the High Court in Willmot, the inability of HM (and, as a consequence, the defendant) to identify the three priests, whether owing to the passage of time or some other reason, or a combination of reasons, could be considered to be an exceptional circumstance justifying a stay, given the institutional context in which HM’s claim is brought.

Ultimately, on 25 February 2025, the Supreme Court of Victoria ordered at [190] as follows:

Accordingly, the applications in the defendant’s amended summons filed on 14 August 2024 will be dismissed. I will hear further from the parties on the question of 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.

If you have any queries regarding the article, please contact via Free Claim Checker or email us.