By Sonya Parsons, Partner, Luke Geary, Partner, and Melanie Farry, Law Graduate
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.
| Jurisdiction | Supreme Court of New South Wales |
| Coram | Chen J |
| Date of Hearing | 2-6, 10-13, 16-19, 30 June; 1, 4, 28-29 July; and 20-21 August 2025 |
| Date of Judgment | 10 September 2025 |
| Plaintiff | WJT (first plaintiff), WXC3 (second plaintiff), GAC (third plaintiff) |
| First Defendant | Trustees of the Marist Brothers (Marist Brothers) |
| Second Defendant | Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta (Diocese) |
A full copy of the case can be accessed here.
These proceedings involved a joint hearing of three claims where each of the plaintiffs alleged sexual and physical assault by their schoolteacher Graeme Stuart Hawkins in the 1990s.
The Diocese of Parramatta was found vicariously liable for the abuse perpetrated by Mr Hawkins, given that the Diocese had appointed him to his role where he was then able to achieve intimacy with students even though the abuse (in respect of the second plaintiff) took place at a canoeing event outside school.
The Diocese filed a cross claim against the Marist Brothers on the basis that the school was jointly operated by the Marist Brothers, and/or that the principal (who was a Marist Brother) was an agent of the Marist Brothers. The arguments were rejected by the Court for a number of reasons, including that the evidence did not support the assertion that the Marist Brothers appointed the principal, and that the Diocese had operational control of the school.
Courts in New South Wales continue to stringently examine claims for historical sexual abuse, with a number of cases that have proceeded to judgment against plaintiffs. In this regard, the environment for plaintiffs in historical abuse cases appears to differ significantly across Australian jurisdictions.
This case is also important for the judicial consideration of the cross claim between the defendants, and the clarification (albeit on specific facts) of the sole operational control by a diocese of a school, rather than joint control with another religious organisation.
All three plaintiffs were former students of the school where Mr Hawkins was employed.
The first and second plaintiffs alleged sexual abuse by Mr Hawkins during canoe camps off school premises, and the second plaintiff further alleged physical abuse during class in 1992. The third plaintiff alleged that sexual abuse by Mr Hawkins took place in and around the classroom and on school grounds in 1993, both during and outside of school hours.
Mr Hawkins was summarily dismissed from his employment in October 1993 and committed suicide two months later.
The plaintiffs’ claims were initially brought against both the Marist Brothers and the Diocese however each plaintiff subsequently settled with the Marist Brothers. The plaintiffs nevertheless continued their claims against the Diocese. The first plaintiff’s claim resolved on the eighth day of the hearing, leaving only the claims of the second and third plaintiffs to be determined.
The Court held that the Diocese was vicariously liable for Mr Hawkins’ actions as his actions were carried out in the course of his employment. This was because the Diocese conferred upon Mr Hawkins sole responsibility for the organisation and supervision of canoeing activities and the canoe club without any apparent oversight. This enabled Mr Hawkins to organise regular canoe club camps where he was the only adult present, allowing him to achieve intimacy with students.
The Diocese pursued a cross claim against the Marist Brothers for each of the plaintiffs’ claims, seeking contribution under s 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW).
The Diocese’s claim for contribution was argued on the basis that:
The Court did not accept that the operations of the school were a collaborative endeavour. The Court held at [507] that ‘the evidence does not establish that the Provincial (and, thus, the first defendant) appointed the Principal. Rather, the evidence tends to establish that the Provincial would make a recommendation and consult with the Director of the CEO of the Diocese, who was “responsible” for that appointment.’
The Court ultimately rejected the Diocese’s argument that there was a conferral of authority to support a relationship of agency. The Court also rejected the Diocese’s argument that meetings between the Provincial and school principal, and restructure of child protection policies were demonstrative of joint operation of the school.
Judgment was entered into for the second plaintiff against the Diocese in the amount of $613,387.00. This amount included general damages (in a relatively small award of $200,000, compared to recent judgments), past and future economic loss, past and future superannuation, future out-of-pocket expenses, and interest.
Verdict and judgment were entered for the Diocese in the third plaintiff’s claim and the third plaintiff was ordered to pay the Diocese’s costs of the proceedings.
This was because the Court was not satisfied with the third plaintiff’s account of the abuse for a number of reasons. This included contradictory statements made by the third plaintiff in his police statement as opposed to disclosures under cross-examination, factual inaccuracies, inconsistencies in the timeline of the abuse given, implausible circumstances, a lack of prior disclosure and conflicting accounts of the abuse itself. These factors all undermined the third plaintiff’s reliability and credibility, ultimately leading to the verdict against him.
If you would like further information or have any queries regarding other matters, please do not hesitate to contact:
