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.
By Brett Hearne, Special Counsel and Tylor Olsson, Lawyer
The applicant, O, claimed damages against the respondent, N (the applicant’s uncle), for injuries arising from trespass to the person and negligence for historical childhood sexual abuse committed between 1978 and 1985 when she was 11 to 17 years old.
The respondent was self-represented and did not give evidence at trial, appearing by audio visual link from prison. The respondent did not file a defence to the Statement of Claim and default judgment was entered on 18 November 2024. The trial to assess damages proceeded and was heard by his Honour Judge White on 7 October 2025.
The respondent admitted to sexually abusing the applicant in criminal proceedings against him in the District Court.
The applicant was born in England in 1967 and moved to Australia with her family when she was 10 years old. The applicant was 57 when she gave evidence at trial.
There were three confirmed incidents of abuse. The incidents of abuse were not contested by the respondent.
The applicant claimed damages for past and future general damages, interest, and exemplary and aggravated damages. The applicant did not claim for past and future economic loss, past and future treatment costs and or past and future care.
The applicant primarily relied on the following evidence at trial:
The respondent did not obtain any responding expert evidence and did not call or lead any witnesses at trial. He also did not give evidence at trial.
The applicant reported the abuse to SA Police in 2022. Prior to this she had attempted to tell her mother about the abuse a couple of years after it had occurred. The applicant’s mother reacted poorly, slapped her, and told her to be quiet. The applicant’s relationship with her mother ended in around 1996. This also ended the relationship with her father, which prior to the abuse was described as very close.
The applicant had and still has lifelong aspirations to be a police officer. Despite her circumstances the applicant has maintained employment save for between 1987 and 2000 when she focused on caring for her children.
Dr Begg diagnosed the applicant with chronic depression due to the trauma of the abuse and apportioned the applicant’s injury 80% to the abuse and 20% to the relationship with her mother.
Damages were assessed at common law and not limited by Part 8 of the Civil Liability Act 1936 because the respondent’s acts constituted intentional trespass to the person torts.
In assessing the applicant’s damages, his Honour Judge White had regard to case law, in particular, the reasons and rationale of Acting Associate Justice Costello in B P v K R & Anor [2025] SASC 58.
At [103] his Honour Judge White found,
“I accept and find that the abuse significantly changed her life from the moment it began and still has a profound effect on her as at the time of trial. She also had to endure periods of her life after the abuse when she lived in the same regional township as the respondent. This caused her acute anxiety whenever he was in close proximity, such as family events.”
At [104] his Honour Judge White found,
“I am satisfied that the abuse changed her mental health and personality from a happy, active, and bright young girl to become ‘angry, gloomy and sullen, with constant feelings of dread’.”
At [109] his Honour Judge White found,
“I find that the effect of the respondent’s actions of abuse is ‘significant’ but not at the extreme range.”
In relation to general damages, his Honour Judge White considered the impact of the abuse on the applicant, previous awards, in particular the award for general damages in B P v K R & Anor and the applicant’s submissions.
In relation to interest, his Honour Judge White referred to B P v K R & Anor, the District Court Act 1991 and submissions on what award might be reasonable.
In relation to aggravated damages his Honour Judge White found that the respondent’s conduct in the case had been to only think of himself and his wife and the consequences that may follow this judgment and that the respondent remained silent other than interrupting the applicant during her oral evidence at trial and that these supported an award for aggravated damages at the higher end of the range despite him admitting the abuse and removing the requirement for the applicant to give evidence in the criminal proceedings.
His Honour Judge White ultimately awarded damages in the sum of $514,000 comprised as follows:
A copy of the full decision can be accessed here https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SADC/2026/88.html
Further Information:
If you would like further information on any of the above, or have any queries regarding other matters, please do not hesitate to contact:
Brett Hearne, Special Counsel
T: +61 8 8330 2925
Tylor Olsson, Lawyer
T: +61 8 8330 2918
If you would like further information or have any queries regarding other matters, please do not hesitate to contact:
