By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Sonia Yeung, Associate

Warning: This article contains descriptions of sexual abuse. The content may be distressing or triggering for some readers. Please take care when reading, and consider whether this material is appropriate for you at this time.

Background

Peter Gaskin (Applicant) brought claims in both negligence and vicarious liability against a self-proclaimed Pentecostal church, the Geelong Revival Centre (Respondent).

The Applicant alleged that between 1987 and 1991 he had been repeatedly groomed and sexually abused by two employees or agents of the Respondent, Hank DeVries and John Strumpel. It was alleged that the sexual assaults were usually followed by a beating.

Trial Decision

The matter was set down for a hearing in the Supreme Court of Victoria commencing on 1 September 2025. Two days before trial the Applicant applied to adjourn the matter and amend his statement of claim. In support of the applications, it was deposed that:

• The Applicant previously had limited contact with his brother, Michael Gaskin, and mother. The Applicant had recently conferred with his brother and mother and considered they would be relevant witnesses in the proceeding. It was also considered that Michael Gaskin should be joined as a plaintiff in the same proceeding.
• The Respondent had recently provided additional discoverable documents, that included two trust deeds relating to the establishment of the Respondent.
• The Applicant intended to apply to amend the statement of claim to include a claim for physical abuse by DeVries, Strumpel, Pastor Noel Hollins and Barry Henderson, all of whom were members of the Respondent.

The amended statement of claim sought to:

• Add Michael Gaskin as the second plaintiff to the proceeding
• Add a claim for physical abuse, on behalf of the Applicant and Michael Gaskin
• Add a claim against the Respondent based on a breach of fiduciary duty by Hollins and Henderson.

The Trial Judge subsequently refused the applications, noting:

• The proceeding had been set down for trial almost 12 months ago. It had come before the Court twice, and on both occasions it was ready to proceed on the listed dates.
• There was no adequate explanation why the Applicant did not contact Michael Gaskin and the Applicant’s mother when the proceeding first commenced.
• There was no explanation offered why the original pleading did not include the claims now sought to be made.
• If the further allegation of physical abuse was included and succeeded, any damages awarded would be very modest.

On Appeal

The Applicant sought leave to appeal the Trial Judge’s decision on the following basis:

• The Trial Judge failed to correctly interpret and apply sections 7, 9 and 26 of the Civil Procedure Act 2020.
• The Trial Judge erred in refusing amendments which the applicant sought to make to his pleadings in consequence of late discovery.
• The Trial Judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the ruling delivered 4 September 2025.

The application for leave to appeal failed on all three grounds. The appellate court’s decision noted the importance of firstly, the Trial Judge’s refusal of the applications was a discretion,  secondly it was important for the Trial Judge to take into account the public interest in the efficient use of court resources, and the potential effect of an adjournment or delay in the proceedings, not only on the parties, but also the efficient management of the Court and other litigation in the Court.

This decision again illustrating the difficulty a party faces in seeking last minute adjournments. Save for exceptional circumstances such applications will likely fail predominantly due to their impact on the efficient use of court resources