Abuse Law – Case Law Update – Young v Waller Legal & Ors [2025] VSC 522

In the recent matter of Young v Waller Legal & Ors [2025] VSC 522, the plaintiff, Ms Georgia-Rose Young (a personal representative of the estate of Paul Shanahan (deceased)), brought proceedings against Waller Legal Pty Ltd (first defendant), Knowmore Legal Service Limited (second defendant), and the Trustees of the Christian Brothers (third defendant).  

The plaintiff alleged that he was abused by Brother Whitten and John Coogan while he was a student at St Joseph’s College in Newtown in the 1970s. St Joseph’s was run by the third defendant. In 2015, the plaintiff engaged the first defendant as his solicitors in a claim against the third defendant. In April 2017, the plaintiff settled that claim for $175,000 inclusive of costs. In mid-2019, the plaintiff engaged the second defendant in relation to an application under the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (“the Act”). A claim was made under that Scheme. The plaintiff was offered some counselling and a ‘direct personal response’, but no further monetary compensation. On 17 February 2021, the plaintiff signed a document indicating that he accepted the offer of counselling but did not wish to receive a direct personal response. 

The plaintiff believed that he received inadequate compensation. Section 27QA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958, were it to apply, would have allowed the plaintiff to bring a second action against the third defendant notwithstanding the previous settlement, were he able to persuade the Court under section 27QB of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to have the 2017 settlement set aside. Section 27QA(3)(b), however, says that section 27QA does not apply to any ‘accepted offer of redress under’ the National Redress Scheme. 

The plaintiff then commenced this proceeding in negligence against first and second defendants. His case against the second defendant was that had Knowmore Legal provided proper advice, he would not have participated in the National Redress Scheme (or perhaps would not have accepted the offer he received) but would instead have sought to avail himself of the process provided for in the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 whereby he could attempt to seek further damages from the third defendant. The damages that are or will be sought against the second defendant are then to be assessed by reference to the value of the loss of that opportunity. 

It follows that the plaintiff’s claim proceeds on the basis that his participation in the National Redress Scheme meant that he was thereafter unable to apply to the Court to have the 2017 settlement set aside and then to commence a fresh proceeding against the third defendant. In its defence, the second defendant contends that on a proper construction of the National Redress Scheme Act and the relevant communications, the plaintiff’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 third defendant. One issue that arises in this proceeding, then, is whether this is so.